Teaching High School Science Through Inquiry and Argumentation [2 ed.] 1452244456, 9781452244457

Table of contents :
TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION-FRONT COVER
TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION
CONTENTS
PREFACE
Achieving Scientific Literacy
Historical Context
A Call for Instructional Reform
What Needs to Happen in the Science Classroom?
What’s New About the Second Edition
Making an Argument for Inquiry
Who This Book Is Written For
Acknowledgments
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
CHAPTER 1: CONSTRUCTING AN UNDERSTANDING OF INQUIRY
Three Designations of Inquiry
Inquiry and Habits of Mind
What the National Science Education Standards Say About Inquiry
What A Framework for K−12 Science Education and the Next Generation Science Standards Say About Inquiry
Inquiry and Scientific Practices
Inquiry as a Three-Legged Stool
Seven Segments of Scientific Inquiry
The Pretzel Theory of Science Inquiry
Inquiry as a Human Endeavor
Ten Beliefs (and Rebuttals) About Inquiry-Based Learning
What Science Inquiry Is—What Science Inquiry Isn’t
A Definition of Scientific Inquiry
Questions for Reflection and Discussion
CHAPTER 2: CONSTRUCTING AN UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTATION
The Influence of Media
What Is a Scientific Argument?
Parts of an Argument
Making a Case for Argumentation
What the National Science Education Standards Say About Argumentation
What the Common Core State Standards Say About Argumentation
Reading Standards for Literacy in Science and Technical Subjects
Writing Standards for Literacy in Science, and Technical Subjects
What A Framework for K−12 Science Education and the Next Generation Science Standards Say About Argumentation
Different Types of Reasoning
Flaws in Scientific Reasoning
Scaffolding Argumentation in the Classroom
The Case of the Sponge Eggs
Verbal Prompts
The Classroom as a Courtroom
Painting a Picture of What Real Scientists Do
Questions for Reflection and Discussion
Notes
CHAPTER 3: LEARNING ABOUT INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION THROUGH CASE STUDIES
A Case Study Approach
A Case Study: Inquiring About Isopods
Isopod Fact Sheet
Resources for Isopods
The Inquiry Cycle
Brainstorming
Why Brainstorming Sometimes Fails
Questions for Reflection and Discussion
CHAPTER 4: CHOOSING TO BECOME AN INQUIRY-BASED TEACHER
A Choice in Teaching
Self-Directed Learning
The Top 10 Reasons Why Teachers Say They Can’t Teach Through Inquiry
Myths and Misconceptions About Inquiry-Based Teaching
What’s Your Instructional Pie?
Steps in Becoming an Inquiry-Based Teacher
Monitoring Your Progress
The Case of Angela Bicknell
What Is a Vision Statement?
Not Settling for Mediocrity
Questions for Reflection and Discussion
CHAPTER 5: DEVELOPING A PHILOSOPHY FOR INQUIRY
What Is Constructivism?
Traditional Versus Constructivist Classrooms
Historical Perspectives of Constructivism
John Dewey
Jean Piaget
Lev Semenovich Vygotsky
Constructivism Today
Metacognition
How Adolescents Learn
Prior Knowledge
Misconceptions
Conceptual Change Theory
Making Sense of Language
The 5E Learning Cycle
Challenges to Creating a Constructivist Classroom
All Things Are Possible
Case Study: Investigating Yeast
A Day at the Life Sciences Learning Center
Questions for Reflection and Discussion
CHAPTER 6: FOUR LEVELS OF SCIENCE INQUIRY
Promoting Student Inquiries
Invitation to Inquiry
Demonstrated Inquiries
Discrepant Events
Structured Inquiries
Guided or Teacher-Initiated Inquiries
Self-Directed or Student- Initiated Inquiries
Guiding Students Into Inquiry
Differentiated Science Inquiry
Case Study 1: Bottle Ecosystems
Case Study 2: The Finger Lakes Regional Stream Monitoring Network
Questions for Reflection and Discussion
CHAPTER 7: MODIFYING A LAB ACTIVITY INTO AN INQUIRY- AND ARGUMENT-BASED INVESTIGATION
The Role of the Laboratory in Science
New Approaches to Traditional Labs
Do a Prelab Assessment
Do the Lab First
Revise the Question Section
Revise the Materials Section
Remove the Safety Rules
Revise the Procedure Section
Add Procedural Errors
Take Away the Data Table and Graph
Redesign the Results Section
Add “Going Further” Inquiries to the End of the Lab
Modifying a Traditional Lab Into an Inquiry-Based Lab
Addressing Misconceptions About Density
Scaffolding Toward Inquiry
Demonstrated Inquiries
Structured Inquiries
Guided Inquiries
Now It’s Your Turn
Self-Directed Inquiries
Writing an Inquiry/Argument-Based Lab Report
The Current Debate About High School Science Labs
Case Study: The Hydrate Lab
Engagement
Exploration
Explanation
Extension and Elaboration
Evaluation
Questions for Reflection and Discussion
CHAPTER 8: MANAGING THE INQUIRY-BASED CLASSROOM
The Implementation Curve
Challenges to Inquiry-Based Teaching
Making Time for Inquiry and Argumentation
Use Essential Questions
The First Second
Develop Daily Rules and Routines
Design Your Lesson Plans Based on Time Allotments
Teach to the Essential Core Concepts
Pick Up the Pace
Use Organized Workstations
Use Concept Maps
Assign Students to Work in Pairs
Provide Time Limits
Limit Class Time for Test Review
Consider Take-Home Tests and Quizzes
Limit Classroom Interruptions
Avoiding a Lockstep Approach
Establishing the Right Atmosphere
Assessing and Monitoring Your Classroom Management Strategies
Case Study: Investigating Contour Lines
Questions for Reflection and Discussion
CHAPTER 9: DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE QUESTIONING SKILLS
The Purpose of Questions
Bloom’s Taxonomy
Expository Questions
Quality Questions Model Quality Thinking
Questioning Techniques
Just Tell Me the Answer
The Power of Praise and Positive Reinforcement
A Three-Step Approach to Better Questioning
Step 1: Ask a Question
Step 2: Ask a Follow-Up Question
Step 3: Respond to the Answer With an Acknowledgment
Recalibrate Your Questioning Skills
Exploratory Questions
Seven Segments of Science Inquiry With Exploratory Questions and Prompts
Case Study: Designing a Professional Development Plan
Questions for Reflection and Discussion
CHAPTER 10: ASSESSING SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY
The Anxiety Over Assessment
Curriculum Alignment
Formative and Summative Assessment Tools
Designing Assessments
Choosing the Right Test Item
Using Multiple Assessments
Authentic Assessments
Performance Tasks
Rubrics
Transcending Questions
Monitoring Charts
Structured Interviews
Self-Assessments
Capstone Projects
Transitioning to New Assessments
Case Study: Measuring and Assessing Centripetal Force
The Prelab
Brainstorming and Planning the Investigation
Carrying Out the Investigation
Communicating the Results
Summarizing the Results of the Lesson
Questions for Reflection and Discussion
CHAPTER 11: CREATING A CLASSROOM CULTURE OF INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION
The Environment of a Traditional Classroom
The Environment of an Inquiry-Based Classroom
Students in an Inquiry-Based Classroom
Students Acting as Researchers
Students Working in Groups
Students Utilizing Higher-Level Thinking Skills
Students Showing Interest in Science
Teachers in an Inquiry-Based Classroom
A Classroom Culture That Fosters Inquiry and Argumentation
Reflecting on a Teaching Career
The Story of Mr. Baker
Final Thoughts: Your Legacy
Questions for Reflection and Discussion
RESOURCE A: RESOURCES FOR HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE TEACHERS
Print Resources on Scientific Inquiry and Argumentation
Print Resources on Inquiry- and Argument-Based Investigations
Print Resources on Constructivism
Print Resources on Science Standards and Science Literacy
Print Resources on Assessment
Print Resources on General Science Areas
Multimedia Resources on Scientific Inquiry and Argumentation
Online Resources on Scientific Inquiry and Argumentation
Professional Organizations
RESOURCE B: BOTTLE HANDOUT
REFERENCES
INDEX

Citation preview

Edition

2 Teaching High School Science Through Inquiry and Argumentation

Edition

Teaching High School Science Through Inquiry and Argumentation

2

Douglas Llewellyn

FOR INFORMATION:

Copyright © 2013 by Corwin

Corwin

All rights reserved. When forms and sample documents are included, their use is authorized only by educators, local school sites, and/or noncommercial or nonprofit entities that have purchased the book. Except for that usage, no part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

A SAGE Company 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, California 91320 (800) 233-9936 www.corwin.com SAGE Publications Ltd. 1 Oliver’s Yard 55 City Road London EC1Y 1SP

All trade names and trademarks recited, referenced, or reflected herein are the property of their respective owners who retain all rights thereto.

United Kingdom SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd. B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044 India SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd. 3 Church Street #10-04 Samsung Hub

Printed in the United States of America. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Llewellyn, Douglas. Teaching high school science through inquiry and argumentation / Douglas J. Llewellyn. — Second edition.

Singapore 049483

pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-4522-4445-7 (pbk.: alk. paper) 1. Science — Study and teaching (Secondary) 2. Inquiry (Theory of knowledge) I. Title. Q181.L75 2013 507.1′2—dc23   2012036934 Acquisitions Editor:  Robin Najar

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Associate Editor:  Julie Nemer Editorial Assistant:   Mayan N. White Production Editor:  Cassandra Margaret Seibel Copy Editor:  Ashley Horne Typesetter:  C&M Digitals (P) Ltd. Proofreader:  Caryne Brown Indexer:   J. Naomi Linzer Cover Designer:  Michael Dubowe Permissions Editor:  Adele Hutchinson

12 13 14 15 16 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Contents Preface ix About the Author   1. Constructing an Understanding of Inquiry Three Designations of Inquiry What the National Science Education Standards Say About Inquiry What A Framework for K−12 Science Education and the Next Generation Science Standards Say About Inquiry Inquiry as a Three-Legged Stool Seven Segments of Scientific Inquiry The Pretzel Theory of Science Inquiry Inquiry as a Human Endeavor Ten Beliefs (and Rebuttals) About Inquiry-Based Learning What Science Inquiry Is—What Science Inquiry Isn’t A Definition of Scientific Inquiry Questions for Reflection and Discussion

xviii 1 1 3 4 5 6 9 9 10 14 15 16

  2. Constructing an Understanding of Scientific Argumentation The Influence of Media What Is a Scientific Argument? Parts of an Argument Making a Case for Argumentation What the National Science Education Standards Say About Argumentation What the Common Core State Standards Say About Argumentation What A Framework for K−12 Science Education and the Next Generation Science Standards Say About Argumentation Different Types of Reasoning Flaws in Scientific Reasoning Scaffolding Argumentation in the Classroom The Classroom as a Courtroom Painting a Picture of What Real Scientists Do Questions for Reflection and Discussion

18 18 19 20 21 22 23

  3. Learning About Inquiry and Argumentation Through Case Studies A Case Study Approach A Case Study: Inquiring About Isopods The Inquiry Cycle

41 41 42 48

26 28 28 29 37 37 39

Brainstorming 50 Questions for Reflection and Discussion 51   4. Choosing to Become an Inquiry-Based Teacher A Choice in Teaching Self-Directed Learning The Top 10 Reasons Why Teachers Say They Can’t Teach Through Inquiry Myths and Misconceptions About Inquiry-Based Teaching What’s Your Instructional Pie? Steps in Becoming an Inquiry-Based Teacher Monitoring Your Progress The Case of Angela Bicknell Questions for Reflection and Discussion

53 53 55 56 57 57 60 61 62 64

  5. Developing a Philosophy for Inquiry 65 What Is Constructivism? 66 Traditional Versus Constructivist Classrooms 66 Historical Perspectives of Constructivism 70 Constructivism Today 75 Metacognition 76 How Adolescents Learn 77 Misconceptions 78 Conceptual Change Theory 81 Making Sense of Language 83 The 5E Learning Cycle 83 Challenges to Creating a Constructivist Classroom 88 All Things Are Possible 90 Case Study: Investigating Yeast 91 Questions for Reflection and Discussion 99   6. Four Levels of Science Inquiry Promoting Student Inquiries Invitation to Inquiry Demonstrated Inquiries Structured Inquiries Guided or Teacher-Initiated Inquiries Self-Directed or Student-Initiated Inquiries Guiding Students Into Inquiry Differentiated Science Inquiry Case Study 1: Bottle Ecosystems Case Study 2: The Finger Lakes Regional Stream Monitoring Network Questions for Reflection and Discussion

100 100 101 102 103 105 106 107 112 114 119 123

  7. Modifying a Lab Activity Into an Inquiry- and Argument-Based Investigation The Role of the Laboratory in Science New Approaches to Traditional Labs

124 124 126

Modifying a Traditional Lab Into an Inquiry-Based Lab Addressing Misconceptions About Density Scaffolding Toward Inquiry Writing an Inquiry/Argument-Based Lab Report The Current Debate About High School Science Labs Case Study: The Hydrate Lab Questions for Reflection and Discussion

132 134 134 140 141 142 144

  8. Managing the Inquiry-Based Classroom The Implementation Curve Challenges to Inquiry-Based Teaching Making Time for Inquiry and Argumentation Avoiding a Lockstep Approach Establishing the Right Atmosphere Assessing and Monitoring Your Classroom Management Strategies Case Study: Investigating Contour Lines Questions for Reflection and Discussion

146 146 147 148 154 155 157 158 162

  9. Developing Effective Questioning Skills The Purpose of Questions Bloom’s Taxonomy Expository Questions Quality Questions Model Quality Thinking Questioning Techniques Just Tell Me the Answer The Power of Praise and Positive Reinforcement A Three-Step Approach to Better Questioning Recalibrate Your Questioning Skills Exploratory Questions Case Study: Designing a Professional Development Plan Questions for Reflection and Discussion

164 165 166 169 169 170 175 176 176 178 179 184 187

10. Assessing Scientific Inquiry The Anxiety Over Assessment Curriculum Alignment Formative and Summative Assessment Tools Designing Assessments Choosing the Right Test Item Using Multiple Assessments Authentic Assessments Transitioning to New Assessments Case Study: Measuring and Assessing Centripetal Force Questions for Reflection and Discussion

190 190 191 192 193 194 195 195 205 206 212

11. Creating a Classroom Culture of Inquiry and Argumentation The Environment of a Traditional Classroom The Environment of an Inquiry-Based Classroom Students in an Inquiry-Based Classroom

213 215 216 216

Teachers in an Inquiry-Based Classroom A Classroom Culture That Fosters Inquiry and Argumentation Reflecting on a Teaching Career Final Thoughts: Your Legacy Questions for Reflection and Discussion

219 222 228 231 232

Resource A: Resources for High School Science Teachers Print Resources on Scientific Inquiry and Argumentation Print Resources on Inquiry- and Argument-Based Investigations Print Resources on Constructivism Print Resources on Science Standards and Science Literacy Print Resources on Assessment Print Resources on General Science Areas Multimedia Resources on Scientific Inquiry and Argumentation Online Resources on Scientific Inquiry and Argumentation Professional Organizations

234 234 236 238 239 240 241 241 241 243

Resource B: Bottle Handout

246

References 247 Index 252

Preface Achieving Scientific Literacy One of the primary purposes of teaching is to heighten and achieve a level of literacy. When we think of a literate person, we picture one schooled with specific knowledge, skills, and dispositions in a particular subject matter. In the case of science, when defining a scientifically literate individual, Flick and Lederman (2006) suggest that contemporary conceptions include the foundations of scientific inquiry and the nature of science. Although I agree with Flick and Lederman, I would add, however, given the advent of A Framework for K−12 Science Education (National Research Council [NRC], 2012), a new footing for literacy—scientific argumentation. Therefore, it is the intention throughout this book to provide an examination of the interrelationship among four topics: scientific literacy, inquiry, argumentation, and the nature of science.

Historical Context The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), in Science for All Americans (1990), defines a scientifically literate person as possessing several facets: a familiarity with the natural world and its unity; an understanding of key laws, principles, and theories that govern science; the capacity to think scientifically, knowing that science, like mathematics and technology, is a human endeavor with its own strengths and limitations; and the ability to use scientific knowledge and process to address personal and societal challenges. The National Science Education Standards (NSES) (NRC, 1996) take a similar approach, stating, “Scientific literacy is the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and process required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity” (p. 22). As a lifelong process, developing from the school years and throughout adulthood, attaining scientific literacy, as the Standards go on to state, means “a person can ask, find, or determine answers to questions derived from curiosity about everyday experiences. It means the individual has the ability to describe, explain, and predict natural phenomena” (p. 22). From these definitions, we begin to appreciate the impossibility of divorcing inquiry, argumentation, and the nature of science from its underpinning—scientific literacy. Developing scientifically literate students equates to your evolving understanding of scientific inquiry. Like the strands of a braided rope, the four are tightly coupled. Like many others, the NRC (1998) argues that achieving science literacy means achieving for all students, not different standards or different instructional programs for particular groups of students. In a democratic society, we should seek attainment for all equally and without exception. Given this goal, the challenges facing teachers today put

ix

x

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

a tremendous burden on them, especially when considering the amount of subject content being crammed into the schools’ curriculum and loaded into high-stakes standardized testing throughout America’s schools. Just looking at the number of pages in a typical high school science textbook today causes us to think about how much content is demanded of today’s students. These days it’s not unusual to find a high school science textbook with 500-plus pages. Despite these demands, science educators need to look no further than the morning newspaper to read about new technological advances and potential hazards we encounter each day: acid rain, global warming, environmental pollution, and cloning; new semiconductors, new viruses, new galaxies, new fuels, and new practically everything else. The rational decision-making process about these growing issues and technologies will necessitate a scientifically literate population. Furthermore, scrutinizing the issues will require a society that can distinguish between scientific claims that are supported by concrete evidence and those that are not. James Trefil provides us with a broadened scope of the issue. According to Trefil (2003), A person is scientifically literate if he or she can deal with scientific matters that come across the horizon of public life with the same ease as an educated person would exhibit in dealing with matters political, legal, or economic. In a society that is becoming increasingly driven by science and technology, a society in which the citizenry is increasingly called upon to deal with issues that contain a large scientific or technical component, this kind of literacy isn’t a luxury—it’s a necessity. (p. 151) In that same light, several proponents of science literacy (DeBoer, 2000; Sutman, 2001) suggest that achieving a citizenry that is scientifically literate will be difficult, if not impossible, unless educators at the elementary and secondary school levels become clear themselves about the meaning of literacy for their particular field and practice the reform efforts proclaimed by the Benchmarks, the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996), and now the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) (NRC, 2013).

A Call for Instructional Reform It has been three decades since the National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE), a blue-ribbon commission appointed by President Reagan, released A Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983). Referring to the “rising tide of mediocrity” in American education, this disturbing report cited the status of education in the United States and called on the nation to raise its expectations for all students by developing rigorous and measurable content and performance standards and better preparing and rewarding teachers. In A Nation at Risk, the commission recommended that all high school students complete 3 years of science in addition to 4 years of English, 3 years of mathematics, 3 years of social studies, and a half year of computer science. Also in 1995, and again in 1999, the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) confirmed that our students, especially middle and high school students, were still not meeting levels of global competitiveness. Eighth-grade students were scoring near the median in science when compared to their international counterparts, whereas high school students were scoring near the bottom. It has also been two decades since two nationally prominent scientific organizations, AAAS and the National Research

PREFACE

Council, have identified the benchmarks and the framework for this nation to develop a scientifically literate society and compete in a global economic society. In their respective publications, Benchmark for Science Literacy (AAAS, 1993) and the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996), each organization identified content and performance standards outlining specifically what students need to know and be able to do at grade levels K−12. The NRC took a further step in advocating how to meet the standards through professional and program development. In the NSES (NRC, 1996), recommendations are made to position elementary and secondary school students to be internationally competitive with their counterparts in other highly developed industrial countries. One espoused recommendation from all organizations is the infusion of inquirybased instruction as an enduring understanding, as well as pedagogy, for teaching science. Moreover, the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) identified inquiry as the preferred method of instruction for both teaching and professional development. Therefore, the national standards suggest elementary and secondary school science teachers develop an inquiry-based science program for their students and a community of learners who reflect the intellectual rigor of attitudes and social values conducive to scientific inquiry. In addition, the professional development of science teachers requires learning science content through the perspectives and methods of inquiry (NRC, 1996). Adding to the charge for instructional reform in science as well as mathematics came the report in 2000 from the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching (2000) for the 21st century, Before It’s Too Late. Former astronaut and Ohio Senator John Glenn headed the commission, calling for an educated citizenry; the commission cited the process of inquiry as the kind of science instruction that can justifiably be called “high-quality teaching.” On January 8, 2002, President George Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act. This landmark piece of legislation was designed to ensure that no child in America be left behind through educational reforms based on accountability and additional funding for states and school districts from the federal level. Now, as we enter the second decade of the 21st century, once again we hear the emphasis on science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) from President Barack Obama’s “Educate to Innovate.” This program will again emphasize the importance of STEM initiatives to foster educational reform in K−12 science as we proceed through this decade. For more information on Educate to Innovate, go online to www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/ educate-innovate. Now with the onset of two new standards projects, Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Initiative and A Framework for K−12 Science Education (to evolve into the Next Generation Science Standards), high school science teachers should be mindful of the focus on having students develop competencies and practices in both inquiry-based and argument-based instruction. According to the NRC (2012), the Framework provides a vision of what it means to be literate and proficient in science. Furthermore, the Framework proposes a vision for science education as a collective body of knowledge and as an evidence-based model that continually extends, refines, and revises knowledge. This new vision will be achieved through the teachers’ ability to teach amid scientific inquiry and scientific argumentation (which will be introduced later in Chapters 1 and 2). This direction regenerates the emphasis from previous standards documents, citing inquiry as a centerpiece for science instruction and placing argument-based discussions on the horizon for science curriculum and reform. Thus, in getting ahead of the curve by incorporating argumentation, science leaders should initiate opportunities where teachers learn to modify their existing inquiry labs

xi

xii

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

into a format where students develop precise claims supported by evidence and, furthermore, justify and defend such claims in oral and written arguments to their peers. During these arguments, other students will be encouraged to present rebuttals, counterclaims, and alternative explanations. Throughout this process, the Next Generation Science Standards envisages that students will gain a more authentic view of the nature of science and develop proficiency skills in reasoning and communication. Note that in 2010, the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) developed the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for English/Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects. A section of the CCSS identifies standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects divided by grade level juncture for K−5, 6–8, and 9–12. Of particular interest to middle and high school science teachers is the section on Reading Standards for Literacy in Science and Technical Subjects, 6–12 and Writing Standards for Literacy in History/ Social Studies, Science and Technical Subjects, 6–12. For more information on the Common Core State Standards see www.corestandards.org. For information on the Framework see the NSTA Web site at www.nsta.org or the National Academies Web site (www.nap.edu) where you can read or order the full document. For information on the Next Generation Science Standards, see www.nextgenscience.org.

What Needs to Happen in the Science Classroom? Given the 30-plus years of blue-ribbon commissions and committees, the overwhelming emphasis for science education suggests that high school science teachers follow a standards-based curriculum and develop teaching competencies and strategies that provide engaging, inquiry-based investigations for students. At the K–12 level, teachers need to hone their understandings of what it means to be scientifically literate, read books and articles on the subject, and have in-depth discussions about the impact of science in today’s classrooms. Curriculum coordinators need to emphasize an inquiry-based approach for all students throughout all levels of the district’s learning outcomes. Science supervisors need to provide teachers with effective and ongoing professional development that advances the latest standards and science literacy. School administrators need to hire teachers familiar with reform standards; with the competencies to teach through inquiry, argumentation, and problem-solving modes; and with the ability to create learner-centered classrooms. It is only through a multifaceted approach that school districts will achieve literacy in science for their students. As science educators, we begin our pathway to becoming inquiry-based teachers by asking two questions: What is the purpose of inquiry? and Why do we aspire to teach through inquiry? To answer the first question, the purpose of inquiry is not to instill curiosity in students but rather to discover it: curiosity and inquisitiveness already lie within the individual—awaiting opportunities to be revealed and made known. To answer the second question, we teach science through inquiry because it’s part of what it means to be scientifically literate: inquiry opens the mind to question the natural world, allowing nature to gradually reveal its secrets. We teach through inquiry when we realize that every child is a born inquirer—coining the scientific name, Homo sapiens inquisitus. We teach through inquiry when we realize that beyond memorizing the seemingly endless list of vocabulary terms, remembering the formulas for chemical equations, and recalling the laws and principles of physics, our first and foremost responsibility is to instill in

PREFACE

students an appreciation, or even a love, for learning science. That passion for combining scientific literacy with the joy of learning commences with students exploring, discovering, and revealing the nature of science through inquiry investigations. Although I endorse the direction of the new standards, the quantity of books for preservice and practicing high school science teachers, unfortunately, does not match the need for information required to address these standards in the 9–12 classroom and, at the same time, adopt an inquiry-based teaching practice. There appears to be an abundant supply of inquiry-based resources for elementary and middle school teachers but far too few for the high school teachers to meet the call for instructional reform. Teaching High School Science Through Inquiry and Argumentation was written to fill that gap. This book focuses on raising a teacher’s capacity to teach science through inquiry- and argumentbased processes, as stated by the national standards and leading science education experts. It is a companion book to Inquire Within: Implementing Inquiry-Based Science Standards in Grades 3–8, second edition (Llewellyn, 2007). Whereas Inquire Within focuses primarily on elementary and middle school grades, this book specifically addresses the needs of science teachers in grades 9–12. The resources are similar in format. Because of the commonalities of inquiry-based learning at the elementary and secondary school levels, similar or recurring sections and diagrams may be found in both books. In the end, both books were written to raise the instructional capacity of all science teachers interested in becoming exemplary science teachers and taking incremental steps toward meeting the new national science standards.

What’s New About the Second Edition The second edition of Teaching High School Science Through Inquiry encompasses several changes. First of all, more emphasis is placed on developing the requisite attitude and mind-set for becoming an inquiry-based teacher: balancing the meaning (the disposition) as well as the mechanics (the how-to) of inquiry. Readers will also find more case studies, investigations, and vignettes of inquirybased activities than in the previous edition. The inquiry examples are correlated to the Framework and are written in a teacher-friendly lesson format for easy implementation in your classroom. The chapters on assessment, classroom management, and questioning skills have been enhanced with more suggestions for practitioners. The major and most significant change in the second edition is the new focus on scientific argumentation. Although argumentation has been studied in select science circles for the last 10 years, it now sits on the horizon of instructional reform as the new Common Core State Standards and the Framework/NGSS are merged into state and district curricula. The second edition emphasizes this new direction of the standards and shows the harmonious marriage of scientific inquiry and argumentation. Their natural pairing is the yin and yang of scientific literacy. For that reason the second edition has been retitled Teaching High School Science Through Inquiry and Argumentation.

Making an Argument for Inquiry In my opinion, science is fundamentally an argument-based subject. Its underpinnings evolve through painstaking investigation, analysis, model building, communication, argumentation, and modification. That is why argumentation plays such a significant role in

xiii

xiv

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

this second edition. Yet not all teachers endorse this view of science. For some teachers who see science as an accumulation of principles, formulas, and dogma, the Framework and the Next Generation Science Standards may be irrelevant and immaterial, while for proponents of inquiry-based teaching, the national standards that integrate science inquiry and argumentation are a heralded event. So in light of these contrasting points of view, I won’t debate the issue within this book but instead have chosen to model the argumentation process as well as show that argumentation is a seamless fit in the scientific inquiry process. I do this in part by enticing you to look at both sides of an argument, viewing an assertion as two sides of the same coin. Adopting this stance provides intellectual balance and fosters a greater appreciation for the scope of the issue. Likewise, throughout the book as well as the Questions for Reflection and Discussion sections at the end of the chapter, claims will be made and arguments will be presented. In some cases, you will read passages from science experts; other times you will read statements from actual high school science teachers. In either case, challenge their statements. Offer rebuttals to the examples given. As you read through the chapters look for “trigger verbs” that imply making a claim: argue, assert, believe, emphasize, insist, state, or suggest. Watch for trigger words that imply disagreement: but, yet, nevertheless, or however. And notice trigger verbs that counter an argument: contradict, refute, or renounce. The trigger words will tip you off to the position taken by the individual in an argument. A wellstructured argument includes examining an issue, testing assumptions, making and asserting a claim, offering supporting evidence, communicating the claim, and being open to opposing arguments and counterclaims. Through the modeling of the argumentation process in this book, I hope you will gain a greater understanding of how to frame an argument. The idea for modeling argumentation within the chapters came after I read They Say/I Say: The Moves that Matter in Academic Writing by Graff and Birkenstein (2010). In the book, the authors present various templates (or starter sentences) for composing an argument. I have adapted Graff and Birkenstein’s format and applied it to our study of incorporating argumentation within the context of scientific inquiry. Although there are no clear-cut, hard-and-fast rules for facilitating an argument-based science discussion, the examples below serve as templates for students to state their opinions or respond to others. Templates or starter sentences include phrases such as the following: “Jessie argues that _______. I agree with him because _______.” “Jessie argues that _______; however, I disagree with him because _______. Therefore, I offer a contrasting conclusion that _______.” “On the one hand, I agree with Nicole about _______, while on the other, I disagree with her about _______.” “When it comes to _______, I feel too many high school science teachers assume _______. On the contrary, I think _______.” As you provide prompts like the ones listed above, your students will soon be able to develop their own opinions and rebuttals—thus enhancing their ability to express scientific viewpoints with supporting evidence. As a cheerleader for scientific argumentation and one who poses positions and opinions throughout the chapters, I realize that academic and professional development books frown on using the first-person pronoun, “I.” In some cases, not a lot, I will break

PREFACE

the rule to express opinions, as in “I believe . . .” or “I claim . . .” Trust me; I will use the “I” word judiciously. By entering into the conversation about argumentation, you should come to appreciate why arguments matter in science. For those still asking, “Who cares?” I contend that although inquiry and argumentation may be of concern to only a small (yet growing) number of high school science teachers, it should in fact concern everyone who cares about promoting science literacy. Anyone reading the Framework can see how fundamentally important analysis and skepticism are in developing a scientifically literate society. Lastly, I trust that readers familiar with the previous edition will welcome the added material about scientific inquiry, argumentation, and questioning strategies. I hope that this new edition will assist both preservice and practicing high school teachers in integrating scientific inquiry and argumentation into their classes. As you create a classroom culture of scientific inquiry and argumentation, I welcome your comments and suggestions, as well as your experiences and stories.

Who This Book Is Written For As a high school science teacher, you might feel you are already a good hands-on teacher, but you want to take the next step in becoming an inquiry-based teacher. You may have read about inquiry in your undergraduate-level courses in preparation for becoming a secondary-level science teacher, or may have studied about scientific inquiry at the graduate school level. Maybe you have read articles about inquiry in The Science Teacher or The American Biology Teacher and wondered, “Am I an inquiry teacher?” Or maybe you feel pretty savvy in teaching through inquiry and now ask, “What’s next?” For many teachers already competent in teaching through inquiry, taking the next step into differentiating your science inquiries or incorporating scientific argumentation into your lessons would be a natural extension to take your inquiry investigations to the next level. This book is predicated on the question, “How can we expect our students to engage in inquiry and argument-based activities if we, as teachers, do not have a sufficient understanding of inquiry ourselves?” Teaching High School Science Through Inquiry and Argumentation will enable you to articulate, in detail, your understandings, attitudes, and dispositions in becoming an inquiry teacher. It will also help you to describe practically why this mode of teaching fits your own “chemistry” as a high school science teacher. As a teacher undergoing the process of National Board Certification (NBC), this book also provides useful examples and background information as you complete the application process and prepare for your portfolio submission for Entry 2: Active Scientific Inquiry. Since the science certification for adolescents and young adulthood includes requirements to demonstrate active student engagement and participation, teachers seeking NBC will need to be versed in scientific inquiry. For more information about the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) and the National Board Certification, see www.nbpts.org. As a science supervisor, teacher/leader, curriculum specialist, or principal interested in improving science literacy in your high school, you will find in this book suggestions for facilitating professional development in inquiry-based instruction and the mechanism for engaging faculty in meaningful dialogue about scientific inquiry and effective teaching toward improving student achievement. Science department heads or teacher/ mentors may be interested in forming a professional development/collegial study group

xv

xvi

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

to design and share lessons on inquiry. In this case, the case studies and reflection questions provide a means to initiate a discussion on inquiry-based strategies. If you are a higher education professor concerned about providing preservice and graduate-level students with appropriate instruction in the methodology of scientific inquiry and argumentation, this book, together with Educating Teachers of Science, Mathematics, and Technology: New Practices for a New Millennium (NRC, 2001a), presents an introduction to instructional reform and suggestions for creating a student-centered classroom fostering inquiry and scientific argumentation. With the arrival of the Common Core State Standards, the Framework, and the Next Generation Science Standards, preservice faculty have an additional obligation to prepare their students with the foundation as well as the proficiency to teach through scientific argumentation. As future science teachers, today’s undergraduate students will lead the next generation of high school pupils in science lessons that need to foster the critical thinking skills required for literacy in the 21st century. Competency in inquiry-based instruction is not developed solely by providing inquiry lessons to high school students or by giving them opportunities to do inquirybased labs. The process is more than that. Inquiry is a personal and professional journey that starts with developing a constructivist-based philosophy and reflecting, both individually and with others, on your instructional beliefs and practices. In The Courage to Teach, Parker Palmer (1998) says, “Good teaching cannot be reduced to technique; good teaching comes from the identity and integrity of the teacher” (p. 10). You may begin your journey by accepting an invitation to inquire within the pages of this book. At the completion of this journey, you should expect to gain enough confidence in inquiry-based instruction to invite your students to begin their own journeys. As you work your way through this book, keep in mind this word of caution: Don’t expect to become an inquiry-based teacher in just 1 year. Refining your skills and strategies takes time. I often say, “You need a Crock-Pot to cook inquiry, not a microwave!” In most cases, teachers may need 3 to 5 years to perfect their inquiry teaching techniques. There are no shortcuts. Be patient—with persistence and peer coaching, you will find yourself becoming more comfortable using inquiry teaching strategies and appropriate questioning techniques to bring about instructional changes in your classroom. According to the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996), “Teachers can be effective guides for students learning science only if they have the opportunity to examine their beliefs, as well as to develop an understanding of the tenets on which the Standards are based” (p. 28). This book was written to serve that purpose. Warning: This book contains language some teachers may find unsuitable for students. Several words include engage, inquire, explore, argue, think critically, justify, and defend. Teacher discretion is advised.

Acknowledgments Over the years, I have had the privilege of working with many exemplary science educators. I sincerely appreciate the contributions and support from many gifted science teachers and friends in writing the second edition of this book. Some were sources of inspiration; others were colleagues similarly interested in inquiry. A few were participants in an inquiry support group, and some were editors and writers who helped me make sense of my thoughts. Heartfelt appreciation goes out to Ronald Bailey, Susan Holt, Dr. Dina Markowitz, Dr. Douglas Merrill, Scott Michel, Joann Morreale, Shelia Myers,

PREFACE

Joanne Niemi, Michael Occhino, Lindsay Orzel, Lynn Panton, Dr. Barney Ricca, Deborah Daino Stack, Kathi Sigler, Dr. John Travers, Kim Voss, George Wolfe, and Jordan Youngman. I also received enormous support from a stellar team of professionals from Corwin, especially Cathy Hernandez, who constantly provides guidance and an occasional boost of confidence. In addition to those mentioned above, I appreciate the encouragement from my family and dedicate this book to my two grandchildren, Katelyn and Allison. Even though Katie is only in day school and Allie is still in diapers, I hope by the time they get to high school, learning through inquiry and argumentation will be an everyday, commonplace experience. Douglas Llewellyn Rochester, New York

xvii

About the Author Douglas Llewellyn teaches science education courses at St. John Fisher College (Rochester, NY). Previously, he was the K−12 director of science at the Rochester City School District, a junior high school principal, and a middle school science teacher. Recently he codirected a program to develop K−12 teacher/leaders in mathematics and science. Llewellyn’s research interests are in the areas of scientific inquiry, argumentation, constructivist teaching, and science leadership. Doug writes on science education and leadership topics for NSTA and other professional journals. He is a frequent speaker at state and national science conferences. His previous books, all by Corwin, include the following: •• Inquire Within: Implementing Inquiry-Based Science Standards (2002) •• Teaching High School Science Through Inquiry: A Case Study Approach (2005) •• Inquire Within: Implementing Inquiry-Based Science Standards in Grades 3–8, 2nd edition (2007) •• Facilitator’s Guide to Inquire Within: Implementing Inquiry-Based Science Standards in Grades 3–8, 2nd edition (2009) •• Differentiated Science Inquiry (2011) Doug is an avid major league baseball fan. His favorite teams are the Boston Red Sox and the Minnesota Twins. During the summer months, he is usually cruising the New York State Finger Lakes and the Erie Canal aboard his restored 1962 Lyman wooden boat. He can be reached at [email protected] or [email protected].

xviii

1 Constructing an Understanding of Inquiry Three Designations of Inquiry One of the most debated topics in science education over the last 15 years has been inquiry. Whether you are discussing science literacy, the nature of science, standards, instructional strategies, or assessment, sooner or later the word inquiry will likely work its way into the conversation. Thus for many teachers, constructing an understanding of inquiry becomes a fundamental necessity to contribute to an intellectual discussion on science education. Since the primary purpose of this book is to enable high school science teachers to develop an understanding of inquiry and to gain an appreciation of the skills, dispositions, and attitudes in creating a “classroom culture of inquiry” within themselves as well as their classrooms, we will start with three designations that are often tossed about as if they were actually all the same: inquiry, science inquiry, and scientific inquiry. For the sake of this book, we will define and attempt to use each term differently. When referring to inquiry, we will use the term in the general, broad spectrum of inquiring— posing questions, searching for answers, probing counterintuitive phenomena, or just simply acting inquisitively. In this wide-ranging sense, science certainly does not have the monopoly on inquiry—one can find inquiry-based teaching and learning in any subject area and at any grade level. When we refer to science inquiry, we will speak to those science activities and investigations that are characteristic of inquiry-based instruction: investigations that are predicated upon a question, whether posed by the teacher, the science textbook, or the students themselves. In Chapter 7, four different levels of science inquiries are presented. In the ensuing chapters, you will find numerous examples of science inquiries to illustrate ideas and understandings made throughout the book. Lastly, when we refer to scientific inquiry, we will denote critical thinking skills, reasoning skills, and habits of mind employed during the process of doing a scientific investigation. Scientific inquiry also involves and engages the student’s knowledge, skills, and attitudes.

1

2

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

Inquiry and Habits of Mind Scientific inquiry provides an excellent means to foster the development of students’ habits of mind. Marzano (1992) describes habits of mind as mental habits individuals develop to render their thinking. Habits of mind often encompass higher-order thinking skills, critical and scientific reasoning skills, problem-solving skills, communication and decision-making skills, and metacognition—being aware of your own thinking. Habits of mind are also closely associated with the 21st-century learning skills students will need to develop to become successful when pursuing STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) careers in the years ahead. Although examples of habits of mind vary from author to author, the attributes usually common in science include the following: •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••

Commitment Creativity Curiosity Diligence Fairness Flexibility Imagination Innovation

•• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••

Integrity Openness Persistence Reflection Sensitivity Skepticism Thoughtfulness Wonder

As we journey further into our understanding of inquiry, we will come to see how inquiry-based classrooms promote critical-thinking skills and habits of mind and empower students to become independent, lifelong learners. Hester (1994) tells us that inquiry involves critical thinking processes such as methods of diagnosis, speculation, and hypothesis testing. The method of inquiry gives students the opportunity to confront problems, and generate and test ideas for themselves. The emphasis is on ways of examining and explaining information (events, facts, situations, behaviors, etc.). Students, when taught for the purposes embodied in inquiry, are encouraged to evaluate the usefulness of their beliefs and ideas by applying them to new problem situations and inferring from them implications for future courses of action. (pp. 116–117) Benchmarks (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1993) suggests by the end of the 12th grade, students should know why curiosity, honesty, openness, and skepticism are so highly regarded in science and how they are incorporated into the way science is carried out; exhibit those traits in their own lives and value them in others. (p. 287) Why are habits of mind so important to inquiry? They are important to inquiry because they communicate a teacher’s values and beliefs about what constitutes good teaching and learning. In turn, habits of mind manifest our classroom behaviors and direct the personality of the learning environment. As students engage in scientific inquiry, they demonstrate these attributes and behaviors in a collective sense as part of completing an investigation. According to the AAAS (1900):

CONSTRUCTING AN UNDERSTANDING OF INQUIRY

It is also important for people to be aware that science is based upon everyday values even as it questions our understandings of the world and ourselves. Indeed, science is in many respects the systemic application of some highly regarded human values. Scientists did not invent any of these values . . . but the broad field of science does incorporate and emphasize such values and drastically demonstrates just how important they are for advancing human knowledge and welfare. Therefore, if science is taught effectively, the results will be to reinforce such generally desirable human attributes and values—curiosity, openness to new ideas, and skepticism. (p. 185)

What the National Science Education Standards Say About Inquiry In 1996, the National Research Council (NRC) released the National Science Education Standards (NSES). In regard to the inquiry standards, the NRC states: Inquiry is a multifaceted activity that involves making observations; posing questions; examining books and other sources of information to see what is already known in light of experimental evidence: using tools to gather, analyze, and interpret data; proposing answers, explanations, and predictions; and communicating the results. Inquiry requires identification of assumptions, use of critical and logical thinking, and consideration of alternative explanations. (p. 23) However, according to the Standards doing inquiry involves more than just utilizing science process skills in the classroom. The Standards require that high school teachers plan activities that engage students in combining process skills and critical reasoning skills to develop an appreciation for and understanding of science. According to the Standards (NRC, 1996), engaging high school students in inquiry helps to develop •• •• •• •• ••

an understanding of scientific concepts, an appreciation of “how we know” what we know in science, an understanding of the nature of science, skills necessary to become independent inquirers about the natural world, and the dispositions to use the skills, abilities, and attitudes associated with science.

The Standards also highlight the ability to conduct inquiry and develop an understanding about scientific inquiry: Students in all grade levels and in every domain of science should have the opportunity to use scientific inquiry and develop the ability to think and act in ways associated with inquiry, including asking questions, planning and conducting investigations, using appropriate tools and techniques to gather data, thinking critically and logically about the relationships between evidence and explanations, constructing and analyzing alternative explanations, and communicating scientific arguments. (NRC, 1996, p. 105) The inquiry standards set forth by the National Research Council (1996) are divided into three separate grade levels or junctures. Each juncture identifies inquiry standards

3

4

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

specific for that grade. These standards help science educators define what students should know and be able to do. Reading the inquiry standards for grades 9–12 can help develop an understanding of the abilities necessary to do scientific inquiry. At the high school level, according to the NRC (2000a), students should be able to •• •• •• •• •• ••

identify questions and concepts that guide scientific investigations, design and conduct scientific investigations, use technology and mathematics to improve investigations and communications, formulate and revise scientific explanations and models using logic and evidence, recognize and analyze alternative explanations and models, and communicate and defend a scientific argument. (p. 19)

Although the National Science Education Standards have been replaced by A Framework for K−12 Science Education (NRC, 2012) and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS; NRC, 2013), science teachers should still become familiar with the National Science Education Standards. The Standards can be purchased in softcover, read online, or downloaded as a free PDF version from the National Academy Press (www.nap.edu/ bookstore). Readers may also be interested in an excellent accompanying text, Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning (NRC, 2000a) that offers stories of high school teachers engaging students in inquiry (see Resource A, the “Print Resources on Scientific Inquiry and Argumentation” section).

What A Framework for K−12 Science Education and the Next Generation Science Standards Say About Inquiry In 2012, the National Research Council (NRC) published A Framework for K−12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. According to the NRC (2012), the Framework identifies a general description of the science content and skill development that all U.S. students should be familiar with by the end of grade 12. The Framework also lays the foundation for the development of the Next Generation Science Standards in 2013. Like the NSES, the Framework identifies and articulates the core ideas in science around which standards should be developed in life sciences, physical sciences, earth and space sciences, and engineering and technology. In addition to the core ideas, crosscutting concepts and science practices are identified and sequenced across the K−12 level. Each of these three dimensions of the Framework inaugurates the vision of the scope and nature of science education as a crucial aspect in fostering scientifically literate citizens for the 21st century. And as with the NSES, inquiry, once again, plays a significant role in the advancement of scientific literacy.

Inquiry and Scientific Practices In the Framework and the Next Generation Science Standards the term practices is used to represent the term inquiry. However, the practices identified in the Framework still strongly reflect certain common qualities to problem-solving and inquiry approaches. According to the NRC (2012), the practices in the Framework document reflect the work that scientists and engineers actually engage in as part of their work. The eight essential practices of science include the following:

CONSTRUCTING AN UNDERSTANDING OF INQUIRY

1. Asking questions 2. Developing and using models 3. Planning and carrying out investigations 4. Analyzing and interpreting data 5. Using mathematics, information and computer technology, and computational thinking 6. Constructing explanations 7. Engaging in argument from evidence 8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information (p. 42) Each of the eight essential practices is elaborated in greater depth in the original document. The Framework, however, makes a stronger commitment to the basis of developing claims and supporting evidence as a result of an inquiry investigation. In the Framework, scientific argumentation and reasoning play a central component in learning science. These two topics will be addressed in greater detail in Chapter 2, “Constructing an Understanding of Scientific Argumentation.” Readers are strongly encouraged to become familiar with the Framework and the NGSS and their implications for inquirybased teaching and learning. In the years ahead, scientific practices and argumentation will play an ever increasing role in the United States’ goal of achieving scientific literacy. The Next Generation Science Standards are poised to advance the next wave of guidelines to guide students to 21st-century learning skills.

Inquiry as a Three-Legged Stool From the readings, we see that inquiry has a three-prong meaning. According to Flick and Lederman (2006), Inquiry stands for a fundamental principle of how modern science is conducted. Inquiry refers to a variety of processes and ways of thinking that support the development of new knowledge in science. In addition to the doing of science, inquiry also refers to knowledge about the processes scientists use to develop knowledge that is the nature of science itself. Thus, inquiry is viewed as two different student outcomes, ability to do scientific processes and the knowledge about the processes. (p. ix) The third prong of its meaning has to do with teachers using an inquiry approach as a means to teach students science content and the methods and processes scientists use. Flick and Lederman (2006) go on to say that “the logic here is that students will best learn science if they learn using a reasonable facsimile of the processes scientists follow” (p. x). Thus for effective inquiry instruction, science teachers need to balance both the understandings about scientific inquiry and the abilities in doing scientific inquiry. In many ways, inquiry is like a three-legged stool. Not only does it refer to the doing, knowing, and teaching aspect, but it also involves the science, art, and spirit of curiosity. Inquiry can be further explained as the scientific process of active exploration by which we use critical, logical, and creative thinking skills to raise and engage in questions of

5

6

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

personal interest. Driven by our curiosity and wonder about observed phenomena, performing an inquiry investigation usually involves several elemental aspects: 1. Generating a science-related question or problem to be solved, one that physically, mentally, and personally engages the student 2. Brainstorming possible solutions to the question or problem 3. Formulating a statement to investigate 4. Designing an action plan and carrying out the procedures of the investigation 5. Gathering and recording data through observation and instrumentation 6. Organizing and analyzing the data for patterns and relationships among the variables 7. Drawing appropriate and evidence-based conclusions, claims, and explanations from the data 8. Connecting the explanation to previously held knowledge 9. Communicating the conclusions, claims, and explanations with others through scientific argumentation As we communicate and share our explanations, inquiry assists in (a) connecting our prior understandings to new experiences, (b) modifying and accommodating our previously held beliefs and conceptual models, (c) providing opportunities for discourse, and (d) constructing new knowledge. In constructing newly formed knowledge, students generally are cycled back into the processes and pathways of inquiry with new questions and discrepancies to investigate. Finally, learning through inquiry empowers students with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to become independent thinkers. In many ways, it is a preparation for lifelong learning, fostering curiosity and creativity. Teachers can encourage students to use communication, manipulation, and problem-solving skills to increase their awareness and interest in science, setting them on the path to becoming scientifically literate citizens. For science teachers, the inquiry approach requires a different mind-set and expectations. At first, inquiry can be both seductive and intimidating to the novice teacher. As teachers come to understand the role they play in facilitating an inquiry-based classroom, the transition from a teacher-centered to a learner-centered classroom becomes promising. For this reason, rather than just providing a compendium of inquiry activities, this book principally emphasizes understanding the philosophical ideology and role-changing process considered necessary for inquiry instruction.

Seven Segments of Scientific Inquiry Another approach to looking at the flow of a scientific investigation can be expressed through the Seven Segments of Scientific Inquiry (Llewellyn, 2011). Here we begin by dividing an investigation into three parts: the question, the procedure, and the results. In previous books by the author, this has been referred to as the Invitation to Inquiry Grid. Later in the book, Chapter 7 will introduce the Inquiry Grid in more detail. For now, let’s return to the three major areas and consider that these three areas can be further divided

CONSTRUCTING AN UNDERSTANDING OF INQUIRY

into Seven Segments, with each segment having its own set of performances and thinking skills. The Seven Segments are as follows: The Question 1. Exploring a Phenomenon 2. Focusing on a Question The Procedure 3. Planning the Investigation 4. Conducting the Investigation The Results 5. Analyzing the Data and Evidence 6. Constructing New Knowledge 7. Communicating New Knowledge Figure 1.1   Seven Segments of Scientific Inquiry The Question 1. Exploring a Phenomenon • Observe a phenomenon or discrepant event (or engage in an open-ended exploration). • Assess your prior knowledge about the phenomenon by asking, “What do I know about what’s happening?” • Assess others’ prior knowledge about the phenomenon by asking, “What do others know about what’s happening?” 2. Focusing on a Question • • • • • •

Make a list of several questions to investigate from the observations made. Choose one (or the first) question to investigate. Scrutinize the question by asking, “Is the question investigatable?” Modify the question, if necessary. Seek initial assumptions and evidence through additional observations of the phenomenon. Clarify the question by asking, “Before designing an investigation, do I completely understand the question?” • Rewrite the question, if necessary. • Write the question on a sentence strip and post on the wall (or on the table) where the investigation is taking place. The Procedure 3. Planning the Investigation • • • •

Decide what data need to be collected to answer the question. Identify the variables and constants needed to investigate the question. Design a controlled experiment or investigation to answer the question. Identify the materials needed to carry out the investigation.

(Continued)

7

8

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

(Continued) • Draw an illustration of the materials and set up for the investigation. • Propose one or more hypotheses to test a tentative explanation or predict an outcome to the investigation. • Design a chart or table to organize the data to be collected during the investigation. • Identify safety rules to follow during the investigation. 4. Conducting the Investigation • Carry out the investigation. • Collect appropriate data. • Record data in the proper column of the chart or table. • Graph the results, if applicable. • Redesign and retry the investigation, if necessary. The Results 5. Analyzing the Data and Evidence • • • • •

Interpret and make meaning from the data. Determine if the data are biased or flawed in any way. Seek patterns and relationships among the variables. Draw an initial conclusion based on the data. Analyze the data and evidence to support, modify, or refute the previously stated hypothesis or prediction. • Make a claim based on the evidence. 6. Constructing New Knowledge • • • •

Form an explanation (or model) from the claim and supporting evidence. Relate the explanation (or model) to other existing models. Reflect upon and make meaning of your newly acquired knowledge. Connect new knowledge to your prior knowledge and the knowledge of others.

7. Communicating New Knowledge • Choose a means to communicate your explanation (or model) and findings to others (e.g., oral report, poster, PowerPoint, written report). • Discuss your results and conclusions with others. • Use scientific reasoning skills to link your claim and supporting evidence. • Engage in scientific argumentation, allowing others to critique your investigation and claim and provide counterclaims to your findings. • Make modifications to your explanation or model, if needed. • Consider follow-up questions to investigate.

The purpose of providing the Seven Segments is threefold. First, it provides a suggested sequence of cognitive skills and performances for a scientific inquiry. By becoming familiar with the Segments, teachers are better able to articulate the concept and process of a science inquiry. Although the Segments may seem to be a lengthy set of sequential steps, they should not be interpreted as an embellishment of the scientific method or prescribed rungs on a ladder. The Seven Segments serve as a way to capture the essential aspects of an inquiry investigation. Second, the Segments provide a blueprint for designing your own science investigations. It is expected that at the end of this book you will feel competent in modifying your present long-standing traditional labs as well as designing your own original inquiries. In the development of your own inquiries, many, if not all, of the Segments will be represented in one way or another in your design.

CONSTRUCTING AN UNDERSTANDING OF INQUIRY

Third, the Segments serve as an assessment vehicle for judging how well a particular lab demonstrates the qualities of an effective inquiry-based science investigation. Whether you use it as a general guide or a checklist, a good number of the performances and thinking skills listed under each segment should be evident in a science investigation. As you read the case studies in this book, occasionally flip back and review the Seven Segments. Make a mental note of how each Segment is applied in the example. Also, as you design your own inquiries later in the book, use the progression of Segments to guide the construction of your own investigations.

The Pretzel Theory of Science Inquiry Throughout this book we will see that not all science inquiries are alike. Some inquiries are short and straightforward. Others may be short with several twists and turns. Similarly, other inquiries can be lengthy yet still straightforward, while still others may be like a roller coaster—long-lasting with loads of loops and zigzags. Think of the different variations of science inquiry as pretzels. There are small, rod-shaped pretzels and long, rod-shaped pretzels. There are small twisted pretzels and large twisted pretzels. Well, you get the analogy. The point is—although you may start off your school year by having students do short, straightforward inquiry investigations—with a little practice and patience they will soon be performing the entire set of the Seven Segments’ manipulative and thinking skills. And for you, the journey of becoming an inquiry-based teacher will test the limits of your creativity.

Inquiry as a Human Endeavor Although the Seven Segments offer a progression for testing assumptions, collecting data, and forming explanations, the observations made, the claims stated, and evidence provided through student inquiries are seldom identical. Even for practicing scientists there is seldom just one correct way to conduct an experiment. Spurred by their inquisitiveness, high school students’ explanations are largely based on their a priori experiences and expectations of the assumption being explored. It is possible that two biology students can conduct the same science inquiry about the local environment yet draw different inferences, claims, and explanations from the same set of data. In this sense, both sorting evidence and constructing explanations becomes a personal matter. In the Benchmarks for Science Literacy, the AAAS (1993) says, “What people expect to observe often affects what they actually do observe” (p. 12). Furthermore, the NRC (1996) states, Science is very much a human endeavor, and the work of science relies on basic human qualities, such as reasoning, insight, energy, skill, and creativity—as well as on scientific habits of mind, such as intellectual honesty, tolerance of ambiguity, skepticism, and openness to new ideas. (p. 170) As high school teachers guide their classes through science inquiries, it is crucial to remind students to keep accurate records of their work in the interest of objectivity. Some students may experience varying difficulties being entirely objective about their work. They tend to choose information as evidence to support their point of view. To help

9

10

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

thwart sources of bias, the accurate collection of data and information is invaluable in supporting claims that are backed with evidence, logical arguments, and critical reasoning (AAAS, 1993). Throughout the inquiry process, students in grades 9–12 should be encouraged to exhibit skepticism and act as a “reflective friend” in critiquing each other’s conjectures and suppositions. Only through the analysis and examination of each other’s work can students truly appreciate the real work of scientists, the essence of inquiry, and the evolving nature of science.

Ten Beliefs (and Rebuttals) About Inquiry-Based Learning To this point, we have been learning what inquiry is. Now, we want to turn our attention and address ten conceptions (or misconceptions) high school science teachers, who are inexperienced with inquiry, often make about this approach to teaching and learning. To introduce the argument process, a rebuttal follows each belief statement. Belief 1: I have students do many hands-on labs as part of my science course. To me, that’s doing inquiry. Rebuttal: Providing students with an opportunity to do labs, especially those with hands-on activities, does not necessarily mean they are doing inquiry. Many lab and textbook activities can be highly structured. These labs usually provide the students with the question to investigate, what materials to use, and most of all, how to go about solving the question by listing a sequence of step-by-step procedures of the lab. In many cases, commercially produced labs even provide a chart or table for the students to record their observations, measurements, or data. These types of labs are often referred to as “cookbook” because they provide a systematic procedure and follow a very linear path to a solution to the question. This is not to say that these kinds of lab experiences are not important, or that high school science teachers should avoid using them, but many traditional and structured labs are not true inquiry. Although most inquiry labs and activities are hands-on, not all hands-on labs and activities are inquiry oriented. Belief 2: I am what many would consider a traditional teacher, and my students do pretty well. My style works for me, especially since there is no research that indicates teaching through inquiry improves student achievement. Rebuttal: The National Science Foundation (NSF) funded Inquiry Synthesis Project synthesized findings from research conducted between 1984 and 2002 to address the research question, What is the impact of inquiry science instruction on K−12 student outcomes? Over 130 analyzed studies indicate a clear, positive trend favoring inquirybased instructional practices, particularly instruction that emphasizes students to actively think and draw conclusions from data. According to the project investigators, teaching strategies that actively engage students in the learning process through scientific investigations are more likely to increase conceptual understanding than are strategies that rely on more passive techniques. For the project’s analysis see Minner, Levy, and Century (2009).

CONSTRUCTING AN UNDERSTANDING OF INQUIRY

Belief 3: I observed a high school science classroom where students were learning through inquiry and the lesson appeared to be unstructured and open-ended. That’s not what I think good teaching is all about. Rebuttal: In some high schools, a good teacher is perceived as one who keeps a classroom quiet and students consumed in seat time. Although no one will argue that effective classroom management skills aren’t essential for inquiry learning, an active, studentcentered classroom should not be equated with chaos or unstructured instruction. As with any lab activity, when students do inquiry-based science we can expect the noise level to raise somewhat. To some, inquiry may appear on the surface to be unstructured and openended, but as student involvement increases, so does the need for the teacher to manage classroom movement and communication. When teachers use inquiry-based strategies, they may find that teaching requires more preparation and anticipation of possible student questions than traditional labs and teaching approaches do. Teachers new to inquiry may often feel less in control when students move about the room, make decisions about their work, and are encouraged to challenge the work of others. Although most teachers are actually in control, they perceive otherwise. To establish inquiry-centered environments, teachers need to accept changes in their role and in the atmosphere and environment of the classroom. In Chapters 8 and 9, we will see how good classroom management and questioning skills are a prerequisite for creating a culture of inquiry. Without good classroom management, any lab, including an inquiry-based lab, will result in a chaotic situation. Belief 4: During my class lectures and discussions, I ask students a lot of questions. To me, that’s one form of inquiry. Rebuttal: Although valuing questions is a basic commonality in an inquiry-based classroom, the misconception held by some high school science teachers is that inquiry teaching requires that the teacher ask a lot of questions. We might recall our own experiences sitting in science lectures where the teacher fired off question after question. Asking a lot of questions does not necessarily make an inquiry lesson. If you ever saw the 1973 movie classic The Paper Chase and watched how Professor Kingsford (played by John Houseman) used his version of the Socratic method to “drill” and intimidate his first-year law students, you know that questions can be a double-edged sword. In Chapter 9, we will see several examples of effective questioning strategies that support inquiry settings. In inquiry-centered classrooms, teachers provide both expository and exploratory questions to foster critical thinking and problem solving. Belief 5: I am under the impression that any science lesson can be taught through inquiry. Rebuttal: On the contrary, the fact is that many of the core ideas in science, especially in the high school grades, are best learned through traditional, didactic methods such as lectures, presentations, simulations, and textbooks. Some science lessons, because of safety reasons or availability of materials, lend themselves to more structured, teachercentered settings than others. Some labs in chemistry and physics do not provide flexibility in the procedure section. As teachers, we decide which lessons are best presented through direct instruction or a teacher-led approach and which ones can be guided through inquiry.

11

12

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

Belief 6: Inquiry may be appropriate for elementary and middle school students, but I can’t teach through inquiry when I am expected to get students ready to pass a final exam at the end of the course. With a high-stakes test looming over my head, I do not have time for inquiry in my college-prep courses. Rebuttal: For many high school science teachers, lecture and discussion are the primary means to dispense knowledge to their students. These teachers see lecturing as the most effective and efficient way to transmit large amounts of content information to their students in a relatively short period. Lecturing is the method by which many teachers learned science when they were in high school. It is also a method by which many teachers learned science when they were studying to become science teachers. So based on prior experience, we should not be surprised that so many science classes are lecture based. High school science teachers often talk about the time constraints they feel they operate under (although the Next Generation Science Standards emphasizes less breadth and more depth). With more and more concepts being added to the curriculum, many science teachers say they are pressed to cover the curriculum in a school year (remember, cover means to obscure from view). It is true that inquiry-based learning takes more time; however, having students pose questions, plan solutions, gather and analyze data, and defend their findings are higher-level thinking abilities, which are only nurtured over time. There are no shortcuts to developing students with critical-thinking skills. I once was told a story about a physics teacher who routinely used the first 5 minutes of class to take attendance and the last 5 minutes of class to provide students an opportunity to start on their homework. If you were to multiply 10 minutes a day by 180 days per school year, you can see that this particular teacher used 1,800 minutes a year, or thirty-six 50-minute periods, on noninstructional procedures. In addition, this same teacher taught a 5-day unit on the latent heat of vaporization that was not part of the district’s physics curriculum. To find time to do inquiry or to create an inquiry-based curriculum, teachers need to utilize their time effectively and efficiently while centering on topics and concepts at the core of the curriculum. Belief 7: You can’t assess inquiry-based learning the way you can science concepts and facts. Rebuttal: Inquiry-based learning can be assessed like any other concept or topic in science but teachers need to use alternative methods of evaluation. Popular objective-type multiplechoice questions do not always adequately assess inquiry-based learning. To assess students’ academic progress, inquiry-based teachers often rely on supplementing traditional assessments by using portfolios, written journal entries, extended response questions, selfevaluations, and rubrics in conjunction with objective-type questions. Examples of each of these alternative, authentic assessments will be presented in Chapter 9. Belief 8: I have been teaching high school science for almost 20 years and have seen a lot of “bandwagons” come and go in my lifetime. Scientific inquiry and argumentation seem to be the latest thing for science education. Rebuttal: Actually inquiry and argument-based instruction have an enduring historical significance in science education. Those who study the history of science education know that questioning, discovery learning, and inquiry date back to the early days of the Greek scholar Socrates. The progressive education reformer John Dewey is credited as one of the

CONSTRUCTING AN UNDERSTANDING OF INQUIRY

first American educators to stress the importance of discovery learning and inquiry. In his early work, Dewey proposed that learning does not start and intelligence is not engaged until the learner is confronted with a problematic situation. His work at the University of Chicago paved the way for curriculum reform in science. Yet despite the overwhelming recommendations from national committees and leading educational reformers in science education, little was done to implement inquiry into America’s classroom in the early 1950s. It wasn’t until October, 4, 1957, when Russian scientists launched a 184-pound satellite with four whisker-like antennae that circled the Earth every 92 minutes at the speed of 18,000 mph that science curriculum reform efforts were sparked. Sputnik, as the Russians called it, was a devastating blow to the American psyche. Although President Eisenhower downplayed the incident, it exposed our technical weaknesses and wounded our national pride. That event led to the formation of the National Defense Education Fund in 1958 to support numerous elementary and secondary school science programs that emphasized inquiry-based instruction. The years from 1958 through the mid-1960s are what some call the golden age of science curriculum in the United States. Working with John Dewey at the laboratory school at the University of Chicago during the 1960s, another reformer, Joseph Schwab, advocated that science curriculum model how science gets done. Schwab encouraged curriculum reformers to design science programs that downplay science as dogma and target the design of investigations, the analysis of data, and the explanation of evidence through argumentation as an essential role for students learning science. Today, on the high school level, premier biology programs such as the Biology Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) are deeply rooted in instructional methods of learning that stress the importance of inquiry-based instruction and communicating newly learned knowledge through discussion and argumentation. In addition, inquiry and argumentation have been and continue to be the philosophical foundation for many NSF and National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) sponsored curriculum projects in biology, earth science, chemistry, and physics. As state, district, and school-level science departments implement the practices, crosscutting concepts, and the core ideas of Next Generation Science Standards, inquiry and argument-based teaching and learning will play a principal role in the formation of K−12 science curricula over the next 20 years. So is inquiry and argumentation a bandwagon or fad? Absolutely not. Belief 9: I perceive inquiry as “soft science” and not content related. Rebuttal: Inquiry, according to the NSF and the National Academy of Science, is one of the core concepts identified as content related. That elevates inquiry to the same level as knowing the concepts, principles, laws, and theories about the life, earth, or physical sciences. According to the AAAS (1990), Science teaching that attempts solely to impart to students the accumulated knowledge of a field leads to very little understanding and certainly . . . science teachers should help students to acquire both scientific knowledge of the world and scientific habits of mind at the same time. (p. 203) If students are to gain an appreciation for science and compete in the scientific and technically oriented society of the new millennium, they will need a curriculum that promotes active learning, critical thinking, and ways to solve tomorrow’s questions. Inquirybased science is a proven means to enhance scientific literacy. Additional research has led

13

14

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

to the conclusion that inquiry promotes creativity, critical thinking skills, and positive attitudes toward science. Although inquiry is no panacea, it is one more strategy teachers can have in their instructional toolbox to engage students in investigations and satisfy their curiosity for learning. Belief 10: I admit inquiry is a good way to teach science. I like giving my students inquirybased labs; however, they seem to be best for high-achieving, college-bound science students. My basic students with learning disabilities have trouble learning through inquiry. Rebuttal: The recommendations set forth in National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) and A Framework for K−12 Science Education (NRC, 2012) apply to all students regardless of age, cultural or ethnic heritage, gender, physical or academic ability, interest or aspirations. The national standards stress that the recommendations apply in particular to those who have historically been underrepresented in the fields of science and engineering: mainly students of color, females, limited English proficiency students, and those considered high need. According to the Standards, “given this diversity of student needs, experiences, and backgrounds, and the goal that all students will achieve a common set of standards, schools must support high-quality, diverse, and varied opportunities to learn science” (NRC, 1996, p. 221). The ability to think creatively and critically is not solely for the high-achieving student. Inquiry-based instruction can and must be done equitably at all levels. In contrast, some teachers argue that it’s the general level students who seem to succeed best by learning through inquiry. Many of those same teachers claim that it’s the high-achieving students who always want to be given the correct answer.

What Science Inquiry Is—What Science Inquiry Isn’t Here’s an activity to do. Working with a partner or in a small group, place a poster-sized sheet of paper on a wall. Using a marker, make a T-chart such as the one shown below. Label the left-hand column “What Inquiry Is” and the right hand column “What Inquiry Isn’t.” (For larger groups, you may want to use two separate poster sheets.) Figure 1.2  

T-Chart What Inquiry Is

What Inquiry Isn’t

CONSTRUCTING AN UNDERSTANDING OF INQUIRY

Give each participant a pad of medium-sized adhesive notes. Tell each of the participants to write a statement on a sticky note that describes what inquiry is or isn’t. And then place that sticky note on the appropriate column of the T-chart. After 10 minutes, the poster sheets should be filled with sticky notes. Next, read all the sticky notes aloud, one at a time. Take off any duplicate statements. Have a discussion about the statements. Were there any statements you would not agree with? Did the activity expose any misconceptions about inquiry? Compare the groups’ postings with the statements about inquiry from the 1996 national standards or the Framework that you read earlier in this chapter.

A Definition of Scientific Inquiry From the chapters that follow, we will discover scientific inquiry as the process of active exploration by which we use critical, logical, and creative thinking skills to raise and engage in questions of personal interest. It is the dynamic collaboration between the individual investigator and the question being investigated. Driven by students’ curiosity and wonder about observed phenomena, inquiry investigations usually involve •• •• •• •• ••

generating a question or problem to be solved, brainstorming possible solutions to the problem, stating single or multiple hypotheses to test, choosing a course of action and carrying out the procedures of the investigation, gathering and recording the data through observation and instrumentation to draw appropriate conclusions, and •• communicating and justifying their claims and evidence through scientific argumentation. As high school science students communicate and defend their explanations, inquiry helps them connect their prior understandings to new experiences, modify and accommodate their previously held beliefs and conceptual models, negotiate meaning (Hand, Norton-Meier, Staker, & Bintz, 2009), and construct new knowledge. In constructing newly formed knowledge, students generally are cycled back into the processes and pathways of inquiry with new questions and discrepancies to investigate. During the investigation throughout this book, you will read about students exhibiting the five essential features of scientific inquiry: •• Learners are engaged by scientifically oriented questions. •• Learners give priority to evidence, which allows them to develop and evaluate explanations that address scientifically oriented questions. •• Learners formulate explanations from evidence to address scientifically oriented questions. •• Learners evaluate their experiences in the light of alternative explanations, particularly those reflecting scientific understanding. •• Learners communicate and justify their proposed explanations. (NRC, 2000a, p. 35) Finally, learning through inquiry and argumentation empowers high school science students with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to become independent thinkers and lifelong learners. The process encourages students to use communication, manipulation, and problem-solving skills to increase their awareness of and interest in science and guide them on their way to becoming scientifically literate citizens.

15

16

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

An inquiry approach requires a different teacher mind-set and classroom culture for creating a learner-centered environment. In Chapters 4 and 5, you will read more about becoming an inquiry-based science teacher and how a constructivist mind-set parallels inquiry. Then in Chapter 6, you will read about the role high school science teachers play in crafting a culture of classroom inquiry.

Questions for Reflection and Discussion At the end of a chapter in many professional development books, the author provides questions for further discussion. Contrary to this and to model good inquiry, the questions should come from you. So whether you are reading this book alone, collaborating in a small study group, or participating in a college course or summer institute, write three questions you presently have about inquiry. The questions may be about the challenges you face in implementing science inquiry in your school or a reaction to a section you read in Chapter 1. This exercise is designed to evoke thoughts, opinions, viewpoints, and most of all, personal feelings about what you are reading. After you write your three questions, share them with others also reading this book. Set a few moments aside, maybe over coffee or pizza, to answer each question. Your questions, responses, and reflections will become beneficial as you progress on your journey. Three Questions I Have 1. 2. 3. If you cannot think of any questions to pose or do not have any questions this early in the book, you can start a journal to record your reflections over the next few months. Begin by writing your definition of inquiry. Prepare a written narrative, a set of bullets, or even a concept map to capture your present understandings of science inquiry. Compare your understandings to the sections you previously read from the national organizations. Consider writing about how you think inquiry promotes scientific literacy and the kinds of knowledge, skills, and attitude your students will need to succeed beyond their high schools years. If you are familiar with Howard Gardner’s theory on multiple intelligences, you can write how inquiry-based learning supports a naturalistic intelligence. Or you can think about how teaching through inquiry (versus teaching about inquiry) supports students in understanding the nature of science. Think about where your science instruction is presently and where you want it be a year from now, 3 years from now, 5 years from now. Regardless of the path you take, it is essential to articulate and document your ideas about inquiry. As you progress through this book, frequently return to your writing and revise your understanding. By adding new thoughts to your definition or scrapping ideas that you now think are outdated, you can make modifications to your evolving notion of inquiry.

CONSTRUCTING AN UNDERSTANDING OF INQUIRY

The following quote is from Interdisciplinary Inquiry in Teaching and Learning (2000) by Marian Martinello and Gillian Cook. How does the analogy of ripples on a pond complement your understanding of inquiry? The pebble that drops into a pond is like an idea that sparks inquiry. The concentric ripples represent new questions that emerge from the first germ of the idea. The ever-enlarging pattern of ripples refer to the integrated knowledge that is acquired as each question is explored, limited only by the force of the inquirer’s enthusiasm for the search. The greater the interest and the more probing the questions, the more encompassing the study, the bigger the ideas that it develops, and the deeper and more meaningful the knowledge the inquirer constructs. (p. 1)

17

2 Constructing an Understanding of Scientific Argumentation The Influence of Media

18

Do you recall the old medicine wagons from the TV westerns in the 1950s and 60s? No? Before your time? Well, in those shows there was often a “professor” or “doctor” selling liniments and cures to remedy any and all aliments from arthritis to illnesses of every kind. He would travel from town to town making claims about his wonder drug. Mesmerized by the professor’s claims and eager to hand over their money for a cure to their ills, townspeople would draw in close to the horse-drawn wagon and listen to the oration proclaiming a litany of benefits from just one bottle of the “good stuff.” Surprisingly, since those days of yesteryear not much has changed. Throughout today’s media there are plentiful claims about political, economic, social, and scientific issues that bombard us every day. Gone are the medicine wagons, but just turn on the television or read the daily newspaper or log onto the Internet, and you can’t avoid someone making a claim about how to lose weight, how to stop smoking, the benefits of herbal medicines, or the threat of global warming. And whether it’s about current concerns or settling disputes between two individuals, it seems there are always two sides to every story. Today’s students are tomorrow’s citizens who need to unravel “snake oil” claims with a smidgen of skepticism. Throughout history we have been subject to claims that are expected to be taken on faith. In 2003, President George W. Bush claimed that Iraq harbored weapons of mass destruction that threatened our national security. That declaration led to a war that was precipitated, in part, on faulty evidence. It would be later discovered that the advice and the evidence the president received led to an erroneous assumption. And never underestimate the power of the media. Advertising experts hire Hollywood stars and professional athletes to make testimonials and commercials endorsing a particular product. Recalling the quote from P. T. Barnum, “There’s a sucker born every minute,” today’s media are unfortunately full of flimflam artists ready to distort the truth and lure the foolhardy into any profitable

CONSTRUCTING AN UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTATION

hoax. As a goal of science education, today’s educators need to instill within their students the ability to discern a deceptive argument from one grounded in substantial evidence. Tomorrow’s citizens, when faced with an allegation, need not jump to conclusions. Rather, they should ask, “How reliable is the evidence?” and “Is the evidence compelling?” Skepticism is the power of doubt. It helps us and our students distinguish science from pseudoscience. One highly popular TV show, MythBusters, utilizes skepticism to test myths, folklore, and legends passed down to us. With stories such as the midwestern crop circles created by aliens circulating (and even being believed), maybe suspicion should be a 21st-century competency we add to the list of science process skills to be taught. You can view “The Truth about Cheerios” at http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video?id=7574047 and see how the FDA made a cereal maker adjust its advertising claim about lowering your cholesterol. Another interesting case to research online involves the lawsuit brought against Reebok in 2011 by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) charging that the shoe company’s claim that its EasyTone shoes led to 28% greater strength and tone was false. In light of the FTC’s evidence contradicting Reebok’s claim, Reebok paid $25 million to settle the lawsuit.

What Is a Scientific Argument? As you have been reading, making a claim usually generates a discussion and can even prompt arguments. But to make a clarification, scientific arguments are not the same as conventional arguments. Conventional arguments usually are disputes in which one person debates his or her point of view to win over the other person. Conventional arguments are perceived as confrontational in nature. There is generally no common ground or win-win approach sought; instead the end results with a winner and a loser, the victor and the defeated. Conventional arguments can be seen everywhere, including court cases where a jury is presented with position-driven explanations based on facts and evidence of the case as interpreted by the prosecution and the defense. It’s the jury’s job to render an opinion based on the preponderance of the evidence. But occasionally, as we all know, facts and evidence can be twisted. Arguments also seem to be commonplace in many school settings. It’s inevitable that arguments would arise in schools where hundreds of preadolescents, overflowing with emotions and hormones, convene for up to 7 hours a day. And although teachers don’t like students to engage in heated arguments in class, a well-orchestrated argument defending claims and evidence from an observed science phenomenon can foster reasoning and teach students how to argue and disagree civilly. As Ross, Fisher, and Frey (2009) put it, “Children are often good at arguing, but not at argumentation” (p. 28). Scientific argumentation, on the other hand, is a critical-thinking skill that helps students propose, support, critique, refine, justify, and defend their positions about issues. The process of scientific argumentation is straightforward and a natural element of scientific inquiry. Although the specifics vary depending on the situation, here is one example of the relationship between inquiry and argumentation. At first, observations are made and data gathered from witnessing a particular phenomenon. Next, students analyze the observations and data by looking for patterns and relationships among the variables studied. The patterns then lead to making several inferences, assumptions, or generalizations. This leads to students making additional observations to substantiate their assumptions. From those assumptions and the data collected, students extract evidence to make a claim. The claim is then justified by additional supporting evidence. Finally, an explanation is constructed and communicated linking the claim and the evidence together. If the evidence supports

19

20

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

the claim, a mental or physical model is often constructed to represent an explanation of the phenomenon. If the evidence refutes the claim, the claim can be contested, withdrawn, or revised. In many cases, the investigation is repeated for a second or third trial of results where alternative claims and evidence are considered. Therefore, using argument-based skills is a spiral process of experimenting, analyzing, validating, and explaining the links among questions, claims, and supportive evidence. The final phase of argumentation lies with the investigator sharing the claim with others. The claim is communicated and supported with the evidence, and a classwide discussion begins. Students are encouraged to be skeptical of the findings and offer counterclaims. What’s important for the teacher to moderate in this situation is that students can disagree with the claim presented but not the person expressing the idea. This focuses the argument on the claim, the evidence, and the explanation—not on the individual presenting the argument. In the end, as with practicing scientists, ideas are generated, verified, discussed with colleagues, and frequently modified throughout the course of argumentation.

Parts of an Argument For our purpose, an argument has five basic parts: the question, the claim, the evidence, the explanation, and the rebuttal. The question being studied stems from an observable phenomenon and guides the direction of the inquiry. The observations may stem from a discrepant event, an inquiry investigation, activities, or labs. The observations later lead the investigator to making a concluding statement derived from the data collected. The claim is an assertion or conclusion that addresses the original question. It is partially based on assumptions and the investigator’s prior knowledge about the event being studied. The claim attempts to construct a tentative answer or possible solution to the question being studied and is supported by evidence collected during the investigation. The evidence is a bit trickier to understand since people can confuse data and evidence. Again for the purpose of this book, data are simply all the observations, information, and measurements collected during an investigation. Evidence, however, is a particular subset of the data that the investigator extracts from the data to support or refute the legitimacy of the claim (Llewellyn & Rajesh, 2011). Therefore, not all the data from an investigation become usable evidence to support a claim. For example, think of a crime scene filled with data and the court case that follows. The prosecuting attorney uses a portion of the data to propose a claim of guilt for the accused individual, while the defense lawyer uses a different portion of the same data to propose a claim of innocence for the accused. Hand, Norton-Meier, Staker, and Bintz (2009) suggest that students may collect some data that will not contribute to making a claim because it doesn’t directly relate to the question or doesn’t yield a pattern. That portion of the data that both relates to the question (or produces a new question) and yields a pattern can be considered evidence. (p. 129) In thinking of data and evidence in terms of sets and subsets, the relationship looks something like Figure 2.1. The fourth part of the argument is the explanation. The explanation summarizes the assertion and provides an interpretation of the newly acquired knowledge. The explanation is also a statement that provides the scientific reasoning about how the claim and the evidence are linked. Thus, teachers should be mindful in encouraging students to make evidence-based explanations. The explanation may also provide a concluding statement

CONSTRUCTING AN UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTATION

Figure 2.1  

Evidence

Data

Source: Adapted from Negotiating Science: The Critical Role of Argument in Science Inquiry (p. 130), by B. Hand, L. NortonMeier, J. Staker, and J. Bintz, 2009, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Adapted with permission.

about the newly acquired information as it sets the stage for the argument being communicated, justified, and debated with others. During the argument, especially in the explanation phase, there is an interesting quandary—which comes first, the claim or the evidence? According to Llewellyn and Rajesh (2011), it’s similar to the chicken and the egg dilemma. In the formation of the argument, the selected evidence is used to generate the claim. However, in the communication of the argument, the claim is usually stated first, and then the collaborating evidence that supports the claim comes next. In other words, during the formation of the claim, students think in terms of parts to whole, while during the communication of the claim, they think whole to parts. A second example to illustrate the connection between the claim and the evidence, as well as the reasoning involved in both, lies with inductive and deductive thinking. When a student uses evidence to make a claim, he or she thinks inductively. That entails reasoning from the specific to the general. In other words, the student uses specific evidence from the data to draw generalizations in the formulation phase of the claim. On the other hand, when a student communicates the claim and supports it with compelling evidence, he or she reasons deductively. That denotes reasoning from the general to the specific. In this case, the student states a generalized claim based and cited by the evidence collected that supports the claim. The fifth part of the argument is the rebuttal. The rebuttal follows the oral or written burden of proof argument presented by the original investigator. In high school science classes, the investigator usually presents the claim and evidence along with a scientific explanation to the other class members for a response. During the rebuttal portion of the argument, counterclaims are suggested and questions are raised as to the reasoning used and the validity of the evidence.

Making a Case for Argumentation The task of partnering scientific inquiry and argumentation simultaneously brews a distinctive approach to teaching science. As the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) are rolled out across the nation by individual states starting in 2013, scientific argumentation

21

22

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

will play a prominent role in curriculum reform and shape the way science lessons are fashioned for the next decade. Unfortunately, because of the ever-increasing reality of increased curricula demands and high-stakes standardized testing, there seems to be less instructional time in the school day to present students with every concept that fills a science textbook. As a result, students get limited opportunities in science class to express, explain, and elaborate their points of view. But in spite of these sometimes overwhelming challenges, curriculum reformers are demanding the end of the “mile wide and an inch deep” science curricula, while exceptional teachers are realizing ways to be effective and efficient in their classroom time so they can provide students with opportunities for argumentation. For many, it just boils down to what’s more important in science—teaching another chemical law or providing students the chance to engage in thoughtful reasoning and debate. For those teachers who foster scientific argumentation in their classrooms, you will frequently find their students •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••

formulating claims based on evidence, constructing an argument, voicing their privately held conceptions, forming decisions to justify a position taken, improving their abilities to frame an argument, having evidence-based discussions, debriefing and reflecting on another’s point of view, providing counterclaims to another’s position, becoming more proficient in argumentation, and improving their speaking and listening skills.

As you look down the list, are there skills and attributes you think are vital for scientific literacy in the 21st century? If so, developing and honing your own skills in teaching, as well as your students’ abilities through argumentation, will likely become a professional goal for you. Now it’s time to move on to what the national science standards say about argumentation. As you read through the statements in the next sections, continue to reflect on what you value as the principal learning skills for the students in your class. Then ask yourself, “How do these statements support what I value most in teaching and learning?” This is also the time when I admit my bias. Okay, here’s the disclaimer. I believe argumentation isn’t important because it’s fostered through the national science standards; it’s vitally important because it just makes perfect sense in developing scientifically literate high school-age citizens. Even if the standards did not foster teaching through inquiry and argumentation as strongly as they do, I would still believe it’s a critical aspect of learning and appreciating the nature of science. After all, that’s my main responsibility as a teacher. Not just to teach the core ideas of science but also to tell the story about how we come to know those core ideas. Realizing that’s a pretty formidable assertion, do you agree or disagree? Do you have a rebuttal?

What the National Science Education Standards Say About Argumentation Within the last 10 years, research has focused teachers’ attention toward inquiry as a means to develop students’ reasoning and argumentation skills. According to the national science standards, the National Research Council (NRC) calls for changing the emphasis of classroom

CONSTRUCTING AN UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTATION

instruction to promote inquiry and argumentation. In its landmark 1996 document, National Science Education Standards (NSES), the NRC fosters the integration of inquiry and argumentation and further suggests a shift in science teaching that includes the following: 1. Using evidence and strategies for developing or revising an explanation 2. Science as argument and explanation 3. Communicating science explanations 4. Groups of students often analyzing and synthesizing data after defending conclusions 5. Applying the results of experiments to scientific arguments and explanations 6. Public communication of student ideas and work to classmates (p. 113) The standards go even further to express the importance of having students make claims using evidence and explanation in the NRC’s (2000a) five features of inquiry. In that, the standards state that in inquiry the learner •• •• •• •• ••

engages in a scientifically oriented question, gives priority to evidence in responding to questions, formulates explanations from evidence, connects explanations to scientific knowledge, and communicates and justifies explanations. (p. 25)

These recommendations clearly define the importance of having students engage in argumentation while articulating their evidence and explanations from scientific inquiries. These recommendations also lay the groundwork for incorporating argumentation strategies into scientific inquiry. The NSES unambiguously state that inquiry should be viewed as a process of “explanation and argument” as well as a process of “exploration and experiment” (NRC, 1996, p. 113). These recommendations are further elaborated in NRC’s (2006) America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science, available free online at www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_ id=11311. In the document, the NRC suggests ways high school science teachers can improve students’ understanding by incorporating argumentation and critical reasoning skills into the curriculum. Readers are strongly encouraged to download a free PDF copy of the document and discuss its significance and application to today’s high school science classrooms.

What the Common Core State Standards Say About Argumentation The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Initiative for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects (also known as the Common Core State Standards) is a national effort to create K−12 standards to ensure that all students are college and career ready by the end of grade 12. The project, led by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Governors Association, establishes a vision of what it means to achieve literacy in the 21st century. Although the future of science education curricula is expected to be largely led by A Framework for K−12 Science Education and the Next Generation Science Standards, the Common Core State Standards will nonetheless guide individual states in modifying their present standards and assessments. Consequently, for those involved in science curriculum development, keeping an eye on the Common Core State Standards translates to being savvy with prominent standards projects

23

24

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

and their impending impact on high school science classrooms. What’s most important to know about the Common Core State Standards is the emphasis on formulating claims and arguments with supporting evidence across all subject areas. Emphasizing reading and writing skills, the Common Core State Standards identifies the following performances for high school science students (Council of Chief of State School Officers & National Governors Association, 2010, pp. 62–66).1

Reading Standards for Literacy in Science and Technical Subjects By the end of grade 12, students should be able to do the following:   1. Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of science and technical texts, attending to important distinctions the author makes and to any gaps or inconsistencies in the account  2. Determine the central ideas or conclusions of a text; summarize complex concepts, processes, or information presented in a text by paraphrasing them in simpler but still accurate terms   3. Follow precisely a complex multistep procedure when carrying out experiments, taking measurements, or performing technical tasks; analyze the specific results based on explanations in the text   4. Determine the meaning of symbols, key terms, and other domain-specific words and phrases as they are used in a specific scientific or technical context relevant to grades 11–12 texts and topics   5. Analyze how the text structures information or ideas into categories or hierarchies, demonstrating understanding of the information or ideas   6. Analyze the author’s purpose in providing an explanation, describing a procedure, or discussing an experiment in a text, identifying important issues that remain unresolved   7. Integrate and evaluate multiple sources of information presented in diverse formats and media (e.g., quantitative data, video, multimedia) in order to address a question or solve a problem   8. Evaluate the hypotheses, data, analysis, and conclusions in a science or technical text, verifying the data when possible and corroborating or challenging conclusions with other sources of information   9. Synthesize information from a range of sources (e.g., texts, experiments, simulations) into a coherent understanding of a process, phenomenon, or concept, resolving conflicting information when possible 10. Read and comprehend science/technical texts independently and proficiently

Writing Standards for Literacy in Science, and Technical Subjects By the end of grade 12, students should be able to do the following: 1. Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content a. Introduce precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establish the significance of the claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and create an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence

CONSTRUCTING AN UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTATION

b. Develop claim(s) and counterclaims fairly and thoroughly, supplying the most relevant data and evidence for each while pointing out the strengths and limitations of both claim(s) and counterclaims in a discipline-appropriate form that anticipates the audience’s knowledge level, concerns, values, and possible biases c. Use words, phrases, and clauses as well as varied syntax to link the major sections of the text, create cohesion, and clarify the relationships between claim(s) and reasons, between reasons and evidence, and between claim(s) and counterclaims d. Establish and maintain a formal style and objective tone while attending to the norms and conventions of the discipline in which they are writing e. Provide a concluding statement or section that follows from or supports the argument presented 2. Write informative/explanatory texts, including the narration of historical events, scientific procedures/experiments, or technical processes a. Introduce a topic and organize complex ideas, concepts, and information so that each new element builds on that which precedes it to create a unified whole; include formatting (e.g., headings), graphics (e.g., figures, tables), and multimedia when useful to aiding comprehension b. Develop the topic thoroughly by selecting the most significant and relevant facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic c. Use varied transitions and sentence structures to link the major sections of the text, create cohesion, and clarify the relationships among complex ideas and concepts d. Use precise language, domain-specific vocabulary, and techniques such as metaphor, simile, and analogy to manage the complexity of the topic; convey a knowledgeable stance in a style that responds to the discipline and context as well as to the expertise of likely readers e. Provide a concluding statement or section that follows from and supports the information or explanation provided (e.g., articulating implications or the significance of the topic) 3. Produce clear and coherent writing in which the development, organization, and style are appropriate to task, purpose, and audience 4. Develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising, editing, rewriting, or trying a new approach, focusing on addressing what is most significant for a specific purpose and audience 5. Use technology, including the Internet, to produce, publish, and update individual or shared writing products in response to ongoing feedback, including new arguments or information 6. Conduct short as well as more sustained research projects to answer a question (including a self-generated question) or solve a problem; narrow or broaden the inquiry when appropriate; synthesize multiple sources on the subject, demonstrating understanding of the subject under investigation 7. Gather relevant information from multiple authoritative print and digital sources, using advanced searches effectively; assess the strengths and limitations of each source in terms of the specific task, purpose, and audience; integrate information into the text selectively to maintain the flow of ideas, avoiding plagiarism and overreliance on any one source and following a standard format for citation

25

26

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

8. Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research 9. Write routinely over extended time frames (time for reflection and revision) and shorter time frames (a single sitting or a day or two) for a range of disciplinespecific tasks, purposes, and audiences As you look down the extensive list, reflect on how the CCSS reading and writing standards align and endorse scientific argumentation. Nevertheless, I suggest that there is a significant difference between the emphasis of the Common Core State Standards compared to the Framework and NGSS. Whereas the Common Core State Standards reading and writing standards suggest a minds-on approach to forming arguments, the national science standards advocate a hands-on approach. What is uniquely remarkable is how both sets of standards complement each other from a cognitive versus a manipulative point of view. In the case of the literacy standards, the evidence for the argument is usually generated from print and Internet sources, while the evidence for the science standards is usually generated primarily from data collected during an investigation. That said, I’m sure many acknowledge a dualist approach: that the evidence to support a scientific claim can originate from both print and online sources and observations and measurements from an investigation.

What A Framework for K−12 Science Education and the Next Generation Science Standards Say About Argumentation In July of 2012, the National Research Council made available a document called A Framework for K−12 Science Education. The Framework is a preliminary version of what would later develop into the Next Generation Science Standards. The Framework was written in consultation with some of the brightest individuals in science education and is based on the leading research in teaching and learning in science. The Framework sets a vision for the future of science education and builds around three major dimensions: (1) scientific and engineering practices, (2) crosscutting concepts that unify science and engineering fields, and (3) core ideas in the physical sciences, life sciences, earth and space sciences, and engineering and technology. And like inquiry, argumentation is one of the most essential aspects in the new standards. The Framework concerns itself with what students should know and be able to do by the end of grade 12. It proposes what it means to be a “critical consumer” of information as it relates to scientific and engineering fields. With more emphasis on depth than breadth, the Framework is specifically designed to reduce the number of core ideas students are responsible for learning and to provide more time to promote inquiry and argumentation. The Framework makes a point of emphasizing practices as they relate to understanding the real work of practicing scientists and engineers. Practices, as viewed by the Framework, place equal or more emphasis on having students analyze and critique data, appraising the quality of the data, and communicating models of evidence-based findings and explanations through scientific argumentation than it does on perpetuating a single and distinct set of procedures for forming hypotheses and designing experiments. According to the NRC (2012), “the focus here is on important practices, such as modeling, developing explanations, and engaging in critique and evaluation (argumentation) that have too often been underemphasized in the context of science

CONSTRUCTING AN UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTATION

education” (p. 3–2). Given that, the Framework identifies eight essential practices to be integrated into the K−12 science curriculum that have a significant impact on inquiry and argumentation: 1. Asking questions 2. Developing and using models 3. Planning and carrying out investigations 4. Analyzing and interpreting data 5. Using mathematics, information and computer technology, and computational thinking 6. Constructing explanations 7. Engaging in argument from evidence 8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information (NRC, 2012, pp. 3–5 & 3–6) You can see that all the practices outlined in the Framework support the notion of scientific inquiry. More specifically, Practices 6 and 7 apply directly to our understanding of how explanation and argument are closely coupled. According to the Framework, the goals for Practice 6, Constructing explanations, state that students by the end of grade 12 should be able to do the following: •• Construct their own explanations of phenomena using their knowledge of accepted scientific theory and linking it to models and evidence •• Use primary or secondary scientific evidence and models to support or refute an explanatory account of a phenomenon •• Offer causal explanations appropriate to their level of scientific knowledge •• Identify gaps or weaknesses in explanatory accounts (their own or those of others). (NRC, 2012, p. 69) The goals for Practice 7, Engaging in argument from evidence, state that students by the end of grade 12 should be able to do the following: •• Construct a scientific argument showing how data support a claim •• Identify possible weaknesses in scientific arguments, appropriate to the students’ level of knowledge, and discuss them using reasoning and evidence •• Identify flaws in their own arguments and modify and improve them in response to criticism •• Recognize that the major features of scientific arguments are claims, data, and reasons and distinguish these elements in examples •• Explain the nature of the controversy in the development of a given scientific idea, describe the debate that surrounded its inception, and indicate why one particular theory succeeded •• Explain how claims to knowledge are judged by the scientific community today and articulate the merits and limitations of peer review and the need for independent replication of critical investigations •• Read media reports of science or technology in a critical manner so as to identify their strengths and weaknesses (NRC, 2012, pp. 72–73) For more information on how the Framework and the Next Generation Science Standards show how the learning progression of the practices flow from one grade juncture to the

27

28

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

next, download a free copy of the Framework at www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_ id=13165 or view the Next Generation Science Standards at www.nextgenscience.org. The National Science Teachers Association publishes a summary guide called the Reader’s Guide to A Framework for K−12 Science Education (Pratt, 2012). That document can be downloaded free at www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781936959 778&lid=ngs. Together with forming explanation and justifying and defending arguments, all the practices from the Framework and the NGSS place a strong emphasis on fostering reasoning skills. We will now turn our focus toward how communicating arguments encourages critical reasoning.

Different Types of Reasoning There are many categories of reasoning patterns recognized in mathematics and science. Several of these include Jean Piaget’s concrete and formal reasoning skills such as conservation reasoning, serration-serial ordering, proportional reasoning, and correlational reasoning. Others contrast inductive and deductive reasoning. Since classroom teachers are not expected to be experts in identifying reasoning patterns, this chapter does not address those capacities—that discussion is left to those who study specific reasoning concepts. This section, however, addresses reasoning as the link between claims and evidence and encourages scientific reasoning skills as an aspect of science inquiries as shown in Figure 2.2. Figure 2.2  

Observations

Claims

Evidence Reasoning

Flaws in Scientific Reasoning Despite our best efforts in fostering critical-thinking skills, students sometimes exhibit flaws in their logic, reasoning, and arguments. When an individual’s argument is faulty, usually those flaws can be (a) an indication of inexperience in using reasoning skills, (b) misconceptions in previously held naive notions about the topic being explored, or (c) backing a claim with another claim. Since research tells us that each student brings to school preconceptions and varying degrees of reasoning skills and abilities to justify his or her theories about how the natural world works, each individual has a unique and distinct cognitive framework that filters reasoning abilities. For that purpose it become necessary for teachers to provide sufficient “think-time” for a student as he or she states an explanation. According to Michaels, Shouse, and Schweingruber (2008), In order to process, make sense of, and learn from their ideas, observations, and experiences, students must talk about them. Talk, in general, is an important and integral part of learning, and students should have regular opportunities to talk through their ideas, collectively, in all subjects. (p. 88)

CONSTRUCTING AN UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTATION

In other words, students need time to fully communicate their understanding without interruptions from the teacher or from other students. In today’s time-constrained curricula, this is often a luxury many teachers say they can’t afford. However, if you truly believe that promoting students to reason like scientists is a primary goal for your instructional program, you will need to make the time to integrate critical-thinking skills and infuse the assessment of previously held conceptions throughout your science program.

Scaffolding Argumentation in the Classroom Students too often experience their science classes as an assemblage of facts and information in a manner that’s the antithesis of the essence of scientific inquiry and argumentation. Correspondingly, Sampson and Grooms (2009) reaffirm that “argumentation is designed to help students learn to view conjectures, explanations, and other claims with initial skepticism and to help students develop more rigorous standards for assessing the merits of an idea” (p. 66). Scientific reasoning is the logic behind scientific inquiry. Fostering scientific argumentation is challenging at times since students struggle with the task of proposing, supporting, critiquing, refining, justifying, and defending a position. Active learning provokes reasoning, and reasoning drives learning (Lawson, 2010). According to Lawson (2010), if you want your students to develop knowledge, “your instruction needs to allow students to encounter puzzling observations and then attempt to explain them through cycles of ‘if-then-therefore’ reasoning. Your instruction then needs to provoke students to reflect on the learning process . . . to engage in scientific inquiry, and then think about what they have done” (p. 73). To accomplish this goal, teachers can use a three-level progression in scaffolding students toward argumentation. The three levels involve the following: Level 1: Making inferences from observations Level 2: Testing another person’s claim Level 3: Making your own claim from evidence At level 1, argumentation is introduced by having students make inferences from an observable event or phenomenon. Several illustrations of simple observable events that utilize the scientific reasoning process include a mystery box (Llewellyn, 2007), track stories (NRC, 1998), and the “magic glue” demonstration (Llewellyn, 2009). The black box is simply an empty shoe box with two square wooden blocks glued to the bottom sides in the box (see Figure 2.3). The teacher places a marble in the box and seals the top lid onto the lower part of the box with packing tape. The teacher then tells the student that the box contains two blocks glued to the bottom and a marble. Using the senses of hearing and touch, the student picks up the mystery box, shakes it, and rolls the marble inside the box to determine the location of the two wooden blocks. Next, the student draws an illustration or model to infer the location of the blocks. Using the evidence collected through his or her senses, the student then explains the model and justifies the location of the blocks to others. As an alternative to the mystery box, Lab-Aids has “A Better Black Box,” a kit containing 12 black-coated petri dishes with dividers inside. Each petri dish contains a small steel ball, and, as with the shoebox, students tilt the sealed dish from side to side to infer where and how the dividers are located. See www.lab-aids.com for more information.

29

30

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

Figure 2.3  

The mystery box activity can be followed up with a discussion on how paleontologists study fossils of ancient plants and animals to determine what life was like tens and hundreds of millions of years ago. By studying artifacts of bones and imprints, scientists make claims based upon evidence from plant and animal remains. New discoveries and explanations are then shared with colleagues and published in scientific journals for further debate and discussion. A second example is an activity many teachers may already be familiar with. In this activity, students are shown a set of tracks, possibly made by two animals (see NRC, 1998, Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science, Chapter 6, Activity 5, “Proposing Explanations for Fossil Footprints”). At each of the three frames, students make observations to draw inferences about how the tracks were made and what kind of animals may have made the tracks. At the end of the third frame, each student uses the observations to tell a story and explain as to how the tracks were made, what animals made them, and how the animals may have interacted (while some students may contend that the tracks were made at different times and the two animals never interacted). What is unique about this activity is how students can form diverse stories and claims based on the same set of observations. A third example is the magic glue demonstration (Llewellyn, 2009). For this activity the teacher needs a glass bottle with a long slender neck (a quart-size beer bottle works well), a small rubber stopper (small enough to fit through the opening of the bottle), a piece of rope about 16 inches long, a sheet of aluminum foil, a small clear glass bottle with a screw top and a label reading “Magic Glue,” and one handout of the bottle for each student (see Resource B). In preparation for the demonstration, place the rubber stopper inside the bottle. Next wrap the outside of the bottle with a sheet of aluminum foil so the bottle is completely covered except for the opening of the bottle (see Figure 2.4). The teacher then asks for a student volunteer to come forward. The volunteer is told to cup his or her hands together. The teacher then unscrews the top of the Magic Glue bottle

CONSTRUCTING AN UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTATION

Figure 2.4  

and pours the invisible glue into the volunteer’s cupped hands. Replacing the cap and placing the Magic Glue bottle aside, the teacher holds up the rope for all the students to see. The teacher dips one end of the rope into the volunteer’s cupped hands—as if to get Magic Glue on the end of the rope. The teacher then says, “I’ll now dip the end of the rope into the bottle.” As the teacher swirls the rope inside the bottle and unobtrusively inverts the bottle, the rubber stopper moves into the neck of the bottle. The teacher then gives a gentle tug on the rope and turns the bottle upright, releasing the bottle and allowing it to hang from the rope. With the demonstration complete, the teacher now asks each student to draw a model on his or her handout that illustrates what’s going on inside the bottle. You will notice that students will draw different inferences and models from the same observations. After a few minutes, select three or four students to come up to the front of the class and explain their models by justifying and defending their explanations. If the models are drastically different, the teacher may choose to have the rest of the class vote for the model that’s best supported by the evidence. In all three examples, the inference or conclusion is like a claim—with the claim being explained using an illustrated model. Here, all the student inferences and models were based on observations and supportive evidence. The teacher can now convey how an

31

32

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

inference is like a claim. Just as inferences are based on observations, claims are based on supporting evidence. By using simple observation-inference activities, students can be introduced to the idea that a scientific argument involves articulating, justifying, and defending claims and models from the evidence collected during a scientific investigation. At level 2, scaffolding toward argumentation involves testing another person’s claim. In this case, students are asked to test a claim made by someone else. The claim may be to design an investigation to test whether “Double Stuf Oreos” really do contain twice the amount of cream filling as regular Oreos (Plankis, Vowell, & Ramsey, 2011) or to design an investigation involving paper towels testing to determine whether Bounty is really the “quicker picker upper.” At this level, students collect evidence to support or refute a previously made claim. At a level 2 task, students formulate a question to be investigated, design the investigation, identify and manipulate variables, carry out the investigation, collect and organize the data, analyze the data, and finally determine the validity of the original claim and substantiate their reasoning with verifiable evidence. In the case study that follows, one high school science teacher, Joanne Niemi, uses a level 2 activity to have a 10th-grade biology class of mixed-ability students test a claim made by the HatchFast Company. This activity is taken from the Science Take-Out kit, Experimenting: Factors that Affect Sponge Egg Hatching (see www.sciencetakeout.com). Let’s see how Joanne familiarized her students as to how to argue scientifically.

The Case of the Sponge Eggs Mrs. Niemi teaches science in a midsized urban high school. Her third-period class is made up of 17 regular education students and students with special needs. In the first month of school, Mrs. Niemi emphasizes how students use science in everyday life. To reinforce that notion, she decides to introduce the class to scientific argumentation. She tells the students that being good detectives and analyzing claims is an important lifelong skill. In Part 1 of “Sponge Egg Hatching,” students conduct a controlled experiment to determine the effect of water temperature on the hatching rate of sponge eggs (small sponges enclosed in gelatin capsules). Afterward in Part 2, students design and conduct their own controlled experiment to test an advertised claim from the HatchFast Company stating that using “HatchFast” speeds up sponge egg hatching. In Part 1 of the kit, students are guided through an inquiry investigation where they time the rate of egg hatching in cool, warm, and hot temperature water. Students then graph the data from their investigation and report on the relationship between water temperature and the time required for the sponge to hatch. Before introducing Part 2 of the lab, Mrs. Niemi presents the class with an advertisement she cut out from a fashion magazine. The advertisement states that for only $49.99 you can lose weight through hypnosis. The advertisement claims that regardless of your previous experience in losing weight, you are 100% guaranteed that this plan will work. Students examine the advertisement and read testimonials saying people have lost up to 99 pounds on the program in as little as 8 months. However, one student notices the fine print stating “individual results may vary.” Mrs. Niemi then leads the discussion toward whether students believe that the claim is warranted and prompts students to determine if evidence exists to support the program’s claim. To broaden the discussion, Mrs. Niemi holds up two magazines, Consumer Reports and an entertainment tabloid, and poses the question, “What evidence is provided to support the claims from these magazines?” She then suggests that while Consumer Reports is based on independent testing and reliable consumer information, the tabloid uses sensationalist, over-the-top, exaggerated headlines to bamboozle gullible readers into paying for

CONSTRUCTING AN UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTATION

bombshell stories about Hollywood stars and famous celebrities. Nevertheless, the success of the slew of magazines that line supermarket checkout lanes can’t be refuted. Over a million readers each week say, “Enquiring minds want to know!” This preliminary information scaffolds students into Part 2 of the sponge egg lab. In Part 2, students design a controlled investigation to test the HatchFast Company’s claim that adding a spoonful of HatchFast, the miracle hatching chemical, to 35º C water decreases the time needed for sponge eggs to hatch. By testing the claim, students identify the independent and dependent variables of the experiment and determine if a control group is needed. In small groups, they write the procedure for the investigation and decide what data to collect. Unbeknownst to the students, HatchFast is essentially red-colored sugar granules that have no effect on the hatching rate. After carrying out the investigation, students eventually acquire sufficient evidence to refute the company’s claim and produce a 5-minute video that presents evidence that contradicts the company’s assertion. The level 2 activities prepare students to now engage in full level 3 argumentation where they raise their own investigative questions; design procedures; identify variables; collect, organize, and analyze data; use evidence to make a claim; form an explanation; and finally communicate, justify, and defend their reasoning and explanation to others in the class. At level 3, Mrs. Niemi provides students with Q-C-E-E sheets to organize their oral presentations. The Q-C-E-E sheets provide space for students to write the question being investigated, the claim being made, the evidence that supports the claim, and an explanation that summarizes the reasoning that links the claim and the evidence together as well as stating newly learned core ideas derived from the investigation (see Figure 2.7). In future investigations, Mrs. Niemi further scaffolds students into more elaborate explanations by providing suggested print and online readings for background information and helps support the formation of their arguments in a section called “What Others Know About the Topic” (see Figure 2.8). At the most advanced point of level 3, students will research their own articles and state what is already known about the question being investigated. This information again serves as a tool for writing an explanation about the newly acquired knowledge and provide the reasoning that links the claim and evidence together in the argument.

Verbal Prompts You just read that reasoning skills can be polished through something as simple as a Q-C-E-E sheet. Although the sheet serves as an initial guideline, to make clear and concise explanations students need further help in articulating their logic. This help can come in the form of prompts. According to Llewellyn and Rajesh (2011), teachers can elicit and promote reasoning skills by posing the following prompts:2 “What assumptions can you make about the observations?” “What’s the basis for your prediction?” “What evidence did you collect that supports your claim, your idea, or your hypothesis?” “Why do you think that’s so?” “What do you mean by . . . ?” “Does the evidence support or refute your claim?” “Are the data biased? Are the data reliable?” “How would you interpret the data and evidence?”

33

34

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

Figure 2.5  

Figure 2.6  

CONSTRUCTING AN UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTATION

Figure 2.7  

Name____________________________________________ Question

Claim Evidence

Explanation

35

36

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

Figure 2.8  

Name_______________________________________ The Question

My Claim

The Evidence

What Others Know About the Topic

My Explanation

CONSTRUCTING AN UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTATION

“What is the relationship between the independent and the dependent variable?” “What do the data say or imply?” “What conclusion can you draw from the evidence?” “How is one variable dependent upon another?” “What explanation can you propose from the evidence collected?” “How do the results support what you already knew about the phenomenon?” “Can you construct a model to support your explanation?” “Were your original assumptions about the question correct?” “How will you defend your findings?” As you become more accustomed to classroom argumentation, these verbal prompts will become a natural part of your questioning skills.

The Classroom as a Courtroom Although high school debate clubs may be a thing of the past, turning your classroom into a courtroom can be an easy way to apply the skills of argumentation in science. By preparing courtroom trials on various historical and present-day opposing beliefs, teachers afford students opportunities to become more proficient in argumentation while providing a sheltered environment in which to disagree and improving their speaking and listening skills. With “Courtroom in the Classroom,” students take on the role of lawyers defending a particular viewpoint of a science controversy by framing an argument and preparing evidencebased summaries or as jurists rendering a verdict based upon the preponderance of the evidence presented. Scientific-related topics that can be argued include the following: •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••

Ptolemy’s geocentric vs. Copernicus’ heliocentric universe Frequent use of cell phones leads to brain cancer Light is a particle vs. light is a wave How did the giraffe get its long neck? By acquired or inherited characteristics? Pluto is a planet vs. not a planet The table you are working on is mostly empty space A meteorite hitting the Earth caused the extinction of dinosaurs The Earth getting warmer Vaccines cause autism

Through the debate of scientific issues, students learn to distinguish between legal and scientific arguments. That is, conventional arguments usually have a winner and a loser, whereas scientific arguments usually result in a new and improved revised model or explanation.

Painting a Picture of What Real Scientists Do By now you can appreciate how seamlessly woven inquiry and argumentation can be. Best of all, by integrating inquiry and argumentation, teachers present a more realistic

37

38

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

picture of the work that scientists and engineers really do. This is a departure from the traditional scientific method that depicts an incomplete image of science. With the scientific method, the experiment focuses on students testing and proving a stated hypothesis. In the traditional scientific method, the hypothesis is a proposed explanation to a question. It serves as a predictor for an expected outcome. The problem with a hypothesis is that students have such a personal investment in the statement that they feel the need to find data that proves their hypothesis to be correct. As a result, they often choose to select data or alter data to prove their hypothesis is accurate. This results in having theory-laden data. In argumentation, there may be no hypothesis to test—just evidence and follow-up claims to make. Some teachers prefer students to have no prior expectations, meaning not having a hypothesis or multiple hypotheses, so students are not wedded to one particular expected outcome. As a follow-up activity, choose one side of this hypothesis/no hypothesis/ multiple hypotheses debate and constructively argue your position with a colleague. Determine when an inquiry investigation should have a hypothesis, or no hypothesis, or multiple hypotheses. Provide specific examples in biology, environmental science, earth/ space science, chemistry, and physics. Finally, in summarizing the inquiry/argumentation process, we can divide the practices into three distinct steps: Before the Lab Make an observation of an event, an unusual phenomenon, or a discrepancy Pose a question related to the observations Use your prior knowledge to make several assumptions about the observations During the Lab Design and implement an investigation to answer the question Design a data table to organize the data collected Collect and record the data from the investigation After the Lab Analyze the relationship among the variables Look for patterns and relationships among the variables Make a claim based on the data collected Cite evidence to support or refute the claim Form an explanation with reasoning that links the claim and the evidence together Communicate, justify, and defend the question, claim, evidence, and explanation to others Transitioning to this approach to teaching science will take time and practice. The transformation of teachers’ values through scientific argumentation involves shedding “old skins” and altering one’s understanding of the dimensions of scientific literacy. Moreover, it reconstructs our attitudes and beliefs about how students learn the true meaning of inquiry and the nature of science.

CONSTRUCTING AN UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTATION

Questions for Reflection and Discussion As you did in Chapter 1, write three questions you have about implementing scientific argumentation in your classroom. Consider the rewards and challenges in such an undertaking. Share your opinions with others reading this book. Three Questions I Have 1. 2. 3. If you cannot think of any questions at this time, discuss the significance of the following statement by Carl Sagan (1996): “Both skepticism and wonder are skills that need honing and practice. Their harmonious marriage within the mind of every schoolchild ought to be a principal goal of public education” (p. 306). Discuss its implications for teachers implementing argumentation in their high school science classrooms. Practice using the following templates to agree, disagree, or both agree and disagree. •• I agree with ______________ (the author) because I believe ______________. •• I wholeheartedly endorse what ______________ (the author) says because ______________. •• I challenge the viewpoint of the author by insisting that ______________. •• I feel ______________ (the author) is mistaken by saying ______________, when in fact, ______________. •• On one hand, I agree with ______________ (the author) that ______________. But on the other hand, I still maintain that ______________. •• My opinion on the statement is mixed. I support the idea that ______________, but I question whether ______________. •• I used to think that ______________. Now I acknowledge that ______________ because ______________ (reason 1) and ______________ (reason 2). As an alternative to responding to the statement above, read the following articles on scientific argumentation published in The Science Teacher and The American Biology Teacher. Use the templates above to agree, disagree, or both agree and disagree with the authors. Discuss the articles with a colleague and apply the authors’ comments to your own classroom. “Argument-Driven Inquiry to Promote the Understanding of the Important Concepts and Practices in Biology,” by Victor Sampson and Leeanne Gleim, The American Biology Teacher, October 2009, pages 465–472. “Argument-Driven Inquiry,” by Victor Sampson, Jonathon Grooms, and Joi Walker, The Science Teacher, November 2009, pages 42–47.

39

40

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

“An Argument for Arguments in Science Classes,” by Jonathan Osborne, Phi Delta Kappan, December 2009/January 2010, pages 62–65. “Generate an Argument: An Instructional Model,” by Victor Sampson and Jonathon Grooms, The Science Teacher, Summer 2010, pages 32–37. Or consider this activity: A “Doubting Thomas” is someone who refuses to believe something without direct evidence. In today’s world we call this person a skeptic. According to Wikipedia, the term Doubting Thomas comes from the Biblical account (John 20: 24–29) of Thomas the Apostle, a disciple of Jesus who doubted Jesus’ resurrection and demanded to feel Jesus’ wounds before being convinced. In the fields of science, as well as science classes, there are many Doubting Thomases. What are the advantages and disadvantages of having Doubting Thomases or skeptics in your science classes? Do more Doubting Thomases come from Missouri, the “Show Me” state, than from other states? What is a skeptic? Why do skeptics scoff at claims without compelling, empirical evidence? View the Web site www .skeptic.com for an interesting distinction between a “skeptic” and a “cynic” and have a rousing discussion. Or consider the following questions: 1. When presenting a claim, how often do your students provide anecdotal and personal opinions as circumstantial evidence for their claim? As a teacher how can you help students use persuasion to “sell” an argument? What role do illustrations, testimonials, humor, and personal experience play in presenting a point of view? 2. Like the traveling medicine wagons and “snake oil” salesmen you read about at the beginning of the chapter, think of the last time you or others were bamboozled or hoodwinked into believing a charlatan’s claim that later proved to be false. How did it make you feel? 3. We live in a world surrounded by superstitions, symbols, and folklore. Ask your students these questions: How many believe in Ouija boards? How many believe in the Farmer’s Almanac? In fortune cookies? In horoscopes? How many believe that ladybugs bring good luck? How many have ever had a Native American dream catcher? Or have a rabbit’s foot for good luck? How many have tossed a coin into a fountain and made a wish? How many have made a wish before blowing out the candles on their birthday cake? How many have a lucky number? How many have triskaidekaphobia (a fear of the number 13)? Are there instances you can think of where students were pertinacious in their belief of someone’s claim, despite the overwhelming evidence showing the claim to be incorrect?

Notes 1. Common Core State Standards are © Copyright 2010 National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. All rights reserved. 2. From “Fostering Argumentation Skills: Doing What Real Scientists Really Do,” by D. Llewellyn and H. Rajesh, 2011, Science Scope, 35(1), pp. 22–28. Reprinted with permission.

3 Learning About Inquiry and Argumentation Through Case Studies A Case Study Approach A case study is a description and analysis of the interaction among members in a particular situation. Cases are ideal for studying scientific inquiry because they present an opportunity for active engagement in a situation (Norton & Lester, 1998). Case studies are especially useful in science education because they emphasize that learning is founded in experience and that knowledge is constructed through problem solving (Dewey, 1938). By investigating a case study, you are actually modeling the engagement of inquiry and problem solving. Because the reader must become intellectually, emotionally, and socially involved with the incidents (Kowalski, Weaver, & Henson, 1990), the case studies in this book are based on real high school science teachers doing real investigations. In some cases, teacher and school names have been changed to ensure confidentiality. Case studies originally were used in the medical, psychology, and legal professions. Although case studies have been used at the Harvard Business School for more than 75 years, some historical records trace the origin of case studies back to ancient Greece (Norton & Lester, 1998). More recently, they have been and are being used in education, business, marketing, and human service fields as practical means to present and examine people interacting in particular situations. The purpose of the case studies in this book is to think about teachers in action and to analyze the interactions and behaviors demonstrated in the lesson. The cases we will study convey the planning, interaction, and dialogue that can be found in a typical, inquiry-based high school science lesson. Some case studies described in this book are short-term inquiries lasting one or more classroom periods. Others represent extended inquiries lasting a month or more. As you work through a case, there are no right or wrong answers; instead of searching for “the answer,” focus on developing the ability to identify underlying causal issues and phenomena found in each case study.

41

42

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

It is not advised to analyze a case study alone. Share your reflections with another teacher interested in inquiry or work in collegial support groups. E-mail, blogs, and discussion boards also can be viable means for a number of people to share their thoughts or reactions. Each case study will have a similar format. The reader will be introduced to the classroom setting, the teacher and students, the subject area or grade level, and a correlation to the national science standards. All cases will be followed by questions and prompts for reflection, discussion, and analysis. In some cases, additional readings, resources, and Web sites are recommended for further study. For more information on using case studies, see the National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science at http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/.

A Case Study: Inquiring About Isopods Now that we have enhanced our understanding of inquiry, let’s study a class of 9th-grade biology students exploring the characteristics and behaviors of isopods. (Although the case study represents a real situation, the names of the teacher and students in this case are fictitious.) In this unit, the teacher, Mrs. Davis, is in her 7th year at Fairfield High School. Her 22 students will be exploring pillbugs (Armadillidium vulgare) by recording observations, raising questions to investigate, testing their ideas, collecting evidence, and communicating their discoveries about animal behavior. The pillbug lesson also aligns with A Framework for K−12 Science Education (NRC, 2012) for grades 9–12. Practices •• •• •• •• ••

Asking questions Planning and carrying out investigations Analyzing and interpreting data Constructing explanations Engaging in argument from evidence

Crosscutting Concepts •• Structure and function Core Ideas •• LS1.A: Multicellular organisms have a hierarchical structural organization For practicality, consider the many advantages to using isopods versus other animals such as worms, snails, or slugs. Isopods are safe and easy for students to handle. Isopods also are ideal in states where education law discourages or prohibits the use of vertebrates for experimentation. In addition, they do not harbor diseases that can be transmitted to humans, are practically odorless, and are easy to raise and prepare for study. Moreover, isopods, unlike fruit flies, cannot fly away and move quite slowly, making them ideal for students to observe and illustrate. Isopods also will not harm other plants and animals in the classroom. Best of all, for some teachers—they don’t bite!

LEARNING ABOUT INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION THROUGH CASE STUDIES

To introduce the lesson, Mrs. Davis assesses the students’ prior knowledge and preconceptions about isopods. She poses the question, “What do you know about pillbugs? Have you ever turned over a rock or rotting log and seen these little roly-poly animals?” She has students individually record their experiences in their science journals and later has them “pair and share” what they wrote with a partner. After several minutes of paired discussion, Mrs. Davis calls on a few students to share their responses with the entire class by stating one or more comments from their table or diagram. She places their responses on the board and organizes their thoughts into a concept map. Mrs. Davis continues by explaining that isopods are like little ecological “janitors” because they eat decaying leaves. In the next phase of the lesson, students have an opportunity to observe and explore pillbugs in a petri dish. Before passing out the pillbugs, Mrs. Davis reminds students to wash their hands before and after handling any animal specimens. Working in groups of two, students now observe and record pillbug characteristics and behavior. At this point, Mrs. Davis also instructs the class to record questions they would like to investigate. She tells them, “As you explore your pillbugs, record your observations and questions in your science journal. We will later use this information to design and conduct our pillbug behavior investigations.” She encourages them to use a two-column format for recording their observations and questions, as in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1  Two-Column Chart Observations

Questions

Mrs. Davis now hands out a sheet of tasks and questions to initiate further explorations. •• Observe your pillbugs at first with your naked eye. Then view the pillbugs using a magnifying lens. Later examine the pillbugs under a dissecting microscope using 4X and 10X magnification. What do you observe? •• Draw an illustration of a pillbug from a top view (dorsal side) and bottom view (ventral side). •• What is the length of a pillbug in millimeters? •• How many body sections does a pillbug have? •• How many pairs of legs does a pillbug have?

43

44

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

•• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••

Do all pillbugs have the same number of legs? How many antennae does the pillbug have? How many eyes does the pillbug have? Do the eyes appear to be simple or compound eyes? Describe the pillbug’s outer plates or outside skeleton (exoskeleton). How many segments does the pillbug have? Do all pillbugs have the same number of segments? What happens when you place a pillbug on its back? What happens when you gently touch the pillbug? Does it roll up? If so, how long does it stay in the rolled-up position?

Following the pillbug exploration, Mrs. Davis concludes the lesson by passing out an Isopod Fact Sheet to the students. She tells the students to read the fact sheet for homework and that tomorrow’s class will start with a discussion of the anatomy, physiology, and habitat features of pillbugs.

Isopod Fact Sheet •• Pillbugs are not insects or bugs. They belong to the order Isopoda, a group of crustaceans similar to lobsters, shrimp, crayfish, and crabs. •• There are more than 4,000 species of isopods. •• Pillbugs have three body parts: a head, a thorax, and an abdomen. •• Most isopods live in marine or freshwater habitats. A few species live on land. •• Pillbugs breathe through gill-like structures. •• Pillbugs have one pair of compound eyes and a pair of antenna. •• Terrestrial pillbugs are usually found under rocks or rotting logs and decaying leaves. •• Pillbugs feed on decaying leaves and other organic matter. •• Pillbugs are usually 5–15 mm in length. •• Pillbugs are wingless and have seven pairs of identical legs. Isopod means “alike legs.” •• Pillbugs are gray to light brown in color. •• Pillbugs are invertebrates. Adult pillbugs are covered with an exoskeleton of armor-like plates that occasionally molt or shed (producing a new one) every 28 days to accommodate growth. •• Pillbugs, Armadillidium vulgare, are sometimes called “roly-polies” and resemble miniature armadillos. They use the roll-up behavior as a defense mechanism and in times of drought. •• Pillbugs differ slightly from sowbugs, Porcellio laevis. As shown in Figure 3.2, a sowbug has two pointed tail-like structures near its posterior and cannot roll into a ball. •• Pillbugs most commonly mate in the spring. Female pillbugs can produce up to 200 eggs that are carried in a brood-like pouch or sac under the thorax. Young pillbugs resemble adults at birth. •• Birds and amphibians are pillbugs’ natural predators. •• Most pillbugs live 2–3 years. The next day, Mrs. Davis starts the lesson by reviewing the Isopod Fact Sheet. Students then have an opportunity to share their observations and questions from their two-column

LEARNING ABOUT INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION THROUGH CASE STUDIES

Figure 3.2  Isopods

Sowbug Porcellio laevis

Pillbug Armadillidium vulgare

table during a class discussion. She then instructs the students to review their observations and questions and narrow down their recordings to select one important question to investigate. Students are given time to brainstorm their ideas, both individually and in groups. Then, one at a time, each student writes his or her one question on the board. As the students share and discuss their questions, Mrs. Davis assists in editing and rewording questions as necessary. She reminds students to write investigative questions as cause-and-effect questions and to describe how one factor or variable changing will affect another factor or variable. Students’ questions include the following: •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••

Do pillbugs have a food or leaf preference? How fast do pillbugs move? Do pillbugs prefer a dry versus a wet environment? Do pillbugs prefer a cold versus a warm environment? Do pillbugs prefer a light versus a dark environment? When placed in a T-maze, do pillbugs more often take left turns or right turns? Do pillbugs prefer sandy soil versus loam soil? Are pillbugs social animals? If I place 20 pillbugs in a pile, would they prefer to stay together or spread out? Do pillbugs have a color preference? Do pillbugs prefer a rough surface or a smooth surface? When placed on different surfaces such as paper towels, aluminum foil, wax paper, or transparent wrap, which surface do pillbugs prefer? Are pillbugs attracted to magnets? Would a pillbug choose an environment with a magnetic field versus one without a magnetic field?

Each student chooses a question and teams with a partner with the same question about pillbug behavior. Now, Mrs. Davis suggests that students brainstorm their ideas and think of a prediction based on their question. She has them write their prediction as a word statement or hypothesis in the form of an “if, then” statement. Janice and Melissa

45

46

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

write, “If I place 20 pillbugs in a chamber where they can choose between damp and dry surfaces, the pillbugs will choose the damp surface.” Rob and Mark write, “If I place 15 pillbugs in a chamber where they can choose between light and dark areas, 75% of the pillbugs will choose the dark areas.” During the design phase of the investigation, students again brainstorm procedures and ways to test their questions and hypotheses. They identify all the variables that could affect the outcome of the experiment and control those variables by selecting one variable, the manipulating or independent variable, to determine the outcome of the investigation. The students also select a responding or dependent variable that becomes the variable that is measured in the investigation. All other variables are controlled or stay the same. Mrs. Davis helps the students set up and design their investigation by posing the following questions: •• How will the variables in your experiment be controlled so only one factor affects the outcome? •• How will you measure whether your hypothesis is valid or not? •• Does your procedure align with the hypothesis? Does the design do what it is supposed to do? As students are designing their investigations, Mrs. Davis provides a blank experimental plan (similar to Figure 3.3) where students identify and fill in the following: •• •• •• •• •• •• ••

The question to be investigated The hypothesis/hypotheses to be tested (if appropriate) The materials needed to carry out the investigation The procedure of the investigation The data collection tables and charts Claim(s) made from the findings Evidence to support the claim(s)

While the students are writing up their design plan, the teacher moves around the classroom, prompting each student by asking such questions as the following: •• •• •• •• ••

What materials will you need to carry out your investigation? How many pillbugs will you use in your experiment? What’s the manipulated variable in your experiment? How will you know if your hypothesis/hypotheses is/are correct? What conclusions and claims can you draw from the findings?

At the close of the period, Mrs. Davis collects each group’s experimental plan and approves each one before the investigation can begin. The next day, about half the students are ready to start their investigations, others are still revising their questions or getting materials and setting up their experiments, and some students are redesigning and tweaking their design plans for the teacher’s approval. For the next two days, students are immersed in recording data, drawing conclusions, and citing supporting evidence. The room is transformed into a virtual laboratory of experimentation! Mrs. Davis proudly watches the students share their ideas and act like real scientists. As the investigations come to a close, students use the computer lab to organize their observations, data, claims, and evidence into graphs and charts. Each group must also communicate its results through oral presentations and written reports. In this

LEARNING ABOUT INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION THROUGH CASE STUDIES

Figure 3.3   Isopod Experimental Plan

Question to be investigated

Hypothesis/Hypotheses to be tested (if appropriate)

Materials needed to carry out the investigation

Procedure of the investigation

Data collection tables and charts

Claim(s) made from the findings

Evidence to support the claim(s)

Concluding explanation

47

48

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

class, students are required to make a 5-minute oral argument to the other students on their question, claim, and evidence. Students also have to complete a one-page written laboratory report that analyzes the data and provides the reasoning for the claim and the evidence. The report is a summary of the original design plan but now includes an explanation of the findings and the newly acquired information. As part of the writeup, students are encouraged to use spreadsheets and graphs generated by computer to explain their results. In addition to the final report, students communicate and defend their findings to the class by using a trifold poster board exhibit or a PowerPoint presentation.

Resources for Isopods For more information about pillbugs and isopods, see the following resources. Burnett, R. (1999). The pillbug project: A guide to investigation. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association. (This book is for upper elementary and middle school grades but may be helpful for high school teachers.) Glase, J., & Palmer, J. (1993). Isopod orientation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Institute for Biology Teachers, Cornell University. Mikulka, T. (December, 2000). Isopod inquiry. The Science Teacher, 67(9), 20–22.

The Inquiry Cycle “Inquiring with Isopods” is just one example of an exploration that encourages students to raise questions. In analyzing the group’s work, the Inquiry Cycle represents aspects of most inquiry-based investigations (see Figure 3.4). 1. Inquisition: Stating a “what if” or “I wonder” question to be investigated 2. Acquisition: Brainstorming possible procedures 3. Supposition: Identifying an “I think” or “If . . . then” statement to test 4. Implementation: Designing and carrying out a plan 5. Summation: Collecting evidence and drawing conclusions and claims 6. Exhibition: Sharing and communicating findings During the inquisition phase, students usually initiate their inquiry by exploring and posing a question. The question is often stated as a “What if” question. The question can originate from an open-ended exploration, as with the isopods, or as a discrepant event, or a teacher-directed activity. In the “Inquiring about Isopods” investigation, the inquisition phase was initiated by the initial exploration activity. During the acquisition phase, students rely on their prior experience to brainstorm possible ideas and solutions to the inquiry. Here students ask, “What do I already know about pillbugs to answer the question?” In the acquisition phase of the isopod exploration, students’ prior conceptions and assumptions about isopod behavior may affect how they perceived the outcome of their question.

LEARNING ABOUT INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION THROUGH CASE STUDIES

Figure 3.4   The Inquiry Cycle

1 6

Inquisition: Stating a question to be investigated

2

Exhibition: Sharing and communicating results

Acquisition: “Brainstorming” possible solutions

Inquiry Cycle

5

3

Summation: Collecting evidence and drawing conclusions

4

Supposition: Selecting a statement to test

Implementation: Designing and carrying out a plan

During the supposition phase, students consolidate the information under study to propose a testable statement or an “I think” statement. This phase may include stating one or more hypotheses to test the question being investigated. During the implementation phase, students design a plan to test their proposed statement(s) and carry out appropriate procedures. During the summation phase, students record and analyze their observations and data to answer to the original “What if” statement. They also look for patterns and relationships among the variables and extract evidence from the data to make appropriate claims. Finally, during the exhibition phase, students communicate and justify their question, claim, and evidence to the class. New information and explanations are presented in the form of argument-based written reports, poster displays, argument-based oral presentations, and PowerPoint presentations. The inquiry cycle can serve as a general format for teachers planning inquiry and argument-based investigations for their students. We should be reminded that the model serves as a general approach to raising and answering questions. Following the inquiry cycle, students often enter and reenter the phases at different aspects of their inquiry process. Thus the cycle serves as a model to guide students through their science inquiries and investigations.

49

50

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

Brainstorming As you can see, during the acquisition phase, brainstorming is an essential element of scientific inquiry. Brainstorming is not a tool for determining the best solution to a problem or issue but rather a means for generating as many ideas or solutions as possible to a question, a problem, or an issue. As high school science teachers, we often underutilize the value of brainstorming in the inquiry process. This may be due to the extra amount of time the discussion process takes. Often, we are in a rush to move the inquiry process along as quickly as possible. In any event, for students to be effective problem solvers, we must teach them how to engage in a thoughtful dialogue and brainstorm ideas to become effective group members. When we take time for students to be involved in brainstorming, we foster higher-level thinking skills such as analyzing, synthesizing, and making judgments and evaluations, as well as habits of mind such as creativity, openness, and reflection. According to Eyster (2010), allowing time for students to brainstorm multiple ideas shows them that the teacher values their creativity. Furthermore, teachers who plan for brainstorming sessions during scientific inquiry communicate to students that discourse and dialogue are integral aspects of the classroom culture. Before beginning any effective brainstorming session, ground rules must be set. This does not mean that rules or boundaries are set so tightly that students cannot be creative. It does mean, however, that a code of conduct for person-to-person interactions has been set. It is when this code of conduct is breached that people stop being creative and the brainstorming and sharing process degenerates. The best way to set meaningful ground rules is to have the students or teams create their own. In the beginning of the school year, and before small-group discussions, allow students to create their own brainstorming ground rules. This should provide an opportunity to practice the skills necessary for an effective brainstorming session. It also allows the students or teams to take ownership of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. Once the list of ground rules is generated, be sure to gain consensus that brainstorming sessions will be conducted according to them. Then post them in a highly visible location in the room. With procedures for setting ground rules in mind, the following are key rules that high school students often identify as useful when conducting a brainstorming session. •• There are no dumb ideas. It is okay to give a wild or wacky idea. This is a brainstorming session, not a serious discussion that requires only serious solutions. •• Don’t criticize other people’s ideas. This is not a debate, discussion, or forum for one person to display superiority over another. •• Build on other students’ ideas. Often, an idea suggested by one student can trigger a bigger or better idea by another student. •• Strive for quantity over quality; the more creative ideas, the better. As the teacher/ facilitator, make a challenge to the teams to come up with as many ideas as possible. •• There are no “put-downs” or judgments made of individual ideas or suggestions. •• All ideas are recorded. One team member may be selected as the recorder. •• Everyone in the group is encouraged to contribute. •• There are no lengthy discussions. Contributions made should be to the point. Set a time limit on the discussion/brainstorming session. To clarify the roles and responsibilities of the individual group members, consider the following preparation questions: •• What is the desired outcome of the brainstorming session? •• Who will lead or facilitate the brainstorming session to meet the outcome?

LEARNING ABOUT INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION THROUGH CASE STUDIES

•• Who can write quickly enough to record the ideas contributed without slowing down the group process? •• Who will keep time for the discussion session? •• Who will report the findings of the brainstorming session to the entire class? During the inquiry process, a brainstorming session usually starts with an idea or a question. The question, in turn, often leads to a divergent level of thinking toward a solution to the question. Everyone in the group is given a chance to talk or give input without comment or ridicule. This is followed by a convergent level of thinking designed to build consensus in reducing all the possible solutions to a manageable few, discussion of the few that remain, and selection of an acceptable procedure to investigate. During this process, the teacher makes periodic process checks with each of the groups and clarifies questions that are unclear or confusing. Students may need assistance from the teacher in eliminating or combining procedures to form a better investigation. Students may also need assistance in ordering individual steps of the investigation into a logical pattern or sequence. In the end, students should determine if the procedure or solution is appropriate and meets the purpose of the question. In other words, does this procedure lead us to answering the question being investigated?

Why Brainstorming Sometimes Fails Science teachers may find that during the inquiry process, brainstorming sessions sometimes fail because of the role played by the facilitator, a pivotal part of the discussion process. Thus, the teacher’s selection of the student facilitator is extremely important. A good facilitator creates a trusting climate, stays neutral throughout the discussion, treats all members as equals, listens intently, remains flexible, and provides closure to the discussion. A poor facilitator, on the other hand, becomes the center of the group’s activity, puts down other students’ ideas, does not manage group conflict, is passive, allows a few people to dominate the process, or lets the discussion ramble. Brainstorming provides an excellent opportunity for high school students to hone their critical thinking skills. Make the time in your instructional planning to have brainstorming sessions, and students will certainly benefit from the experience.

Questions for Reflection and Discussion 1. Why did Mrs. Davis have students “pair and share” their prior experiences? 2. Why did Mrs. Davis place students’ responses on the board? 3. What are the benefits of making a concept map of students’ preconceptions? 4. Why did the teacher have students explore their pillbugs before presenting and explaining the Isopod Fact Sheet? 5. How can a teacher realistically monitor 8–12 investigations going on simultaneously? 6. What is the value in having students make oral arguments and presentations to the class? How do oral presentations support speaking and listening skills?

51

52

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

7. During the isopod investigation, you read about students exhibiting the National Research Council’s five essential features of scientific inquiry: •• Learners are engaged by scientifically oriented questions. •• Learners give priority to evidence, which allows them to develop and evaluate explanations that address scientifically oriented questions. •• Learners formulate explanations from evidence to address scientifically oriented questions. •• Learners evaluate their experiences in the light of alternative explanations, particularly those reflecting scientific understanding. •• Learners communicate and justify their proposed explanations. (NRC, 2000a, p. 25) Identify parts in the isopod investigation where students demonstrated each feature listed above and explain how the isopod investigation featured aspects of inquiry and argumentation.

4 Choosing to Become an Inquiry-Based Teacher

I

n Chapters 1 and 2, you read about scientific inquiry and the role argumentation plays in painting a picture of the work of real scientists. In Chapter 3, you read a case study on how one high school science teacher integrates scientific inquiry and argumentation into a science lab using isopods. Now in Chapter 4, you are asked to reflect on the reason you decided to become a science teacher and how that choice may lead you to becoming an inquiry-based teacher. This is an important aspect in the “discovery/becoming” process because it drives you to think about the meaning behind the decisions you make that affect your teaching career and ultimately your legacy as a teacher. Balancing the meaning with the mechanics in becoming an inquiry-based teacher, you’ll envision a clear direction for your professional goals and aspirations. In this chapter, we will look at the meaning (the why) of becoming an inquiry science teacher. In subsequent chapters, we will look at the mechanics (the how).

A Choice in Teaching At some point in your life, you decided to become a high school science teacher. Did you ever ask, “Why?” Was your decision prompted by a longing to work with high school students and to broaden their understanding and appreciation of the natural world? Was it your love for science? Were your parents teachers? Or was there a particular teacher you had in your life that influenced you to become a science teacher? As you contemplate becoming an inquiry-based science teacher, your reason for that decision is just as important as the motivation that led you to become a teacher in the first place. With your decision made to be a high school science teacher, the next question is— what kind of science teacher do you want to be a year from now, 3 years from now, or

53

54

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

5 years from now? It’s a very simple yet profound question. And although it may seem like a rhetorical question, it’s a question you should ask yourself repeatedly. Having a conceptual image of the kind of teacher you want to be arises from a great deal of thought and reflection. For each person it’s a matter of choice. What is it about teaching science that excites you? What drives your passion about teaching science? Is there a particular aspect or method of teaching you would like to specialize in? For example, some teachers choose to get deeply involved in using handheld technology, such as sensors and probes, in their classrooms. Some choose to get involved with integrating engineering design with science, while others like doing micro scale labs. There are teachers who like using Socratic seminars in class or integrating computer technology into labs. Still others like using formative assessments; or working with local museums, zoos, or colleges; or focusing on gender equity or English language learners in science; or teaching through scientific inquiry and argumentation—the list goes on and on. What’s important is that you choose something that excites and energizes you, something that takes you beyond being just an ordinary teacher of science, something that traffics you far from a generic state of teaching. I often suggest that teachers specialize in one particular aspect of teaching science and become an expert by reading about it and attending professional development sessions on the topic. In other words, find something about teaching science that you are fervently passionate about and choose to make it your area of proficiency. For the purpose of this book, it is presumed that becoming an inquiry-based science teacher is the decision you made. The first step in your journey to becoming an inquiry-based teacher is to seek to understand the question, “Why did I choose to take the road to inquiry?” The answer starts by inquiring within yourself. What is it about inquiry that will energize your teaching and your classroom? As you picture that classroom in your mind, form an image of yourself interacting and engaging your students with exciting and stimulating lessons. What is it about this classroom that complements your philosophy for teaching? As you inquire within your beliefs about teaching, you begin to move your ideas out of your gut and into your head. By doing so, you articulate the kind of teacher you want to be. You also are able to eloquently and persuasively express the meaning of inquiry to yourself, to your students, to colleagues, to your administration, and to parents and community members. So ask yourself the question and listen for the answers from within. See where your inner voice directs you. Follow your heart. Trust your instincts and plan your journey sensibly. Take time to establish meaningful milestones along the way: places where you pause and reflect on your travels thus far and reassess your next steps, planning course corrections if needed and reevaluating if this journey is right for you—for the teacher you aspire to be and the professional legacy you choose to create. Too often we concern ourselves about the mechanics and the methodologies of teaching without giving time to consider the personal and philosophical issues of teaching. Right now, I’m asking you to take time to listen to your inner voice. What is driving you to become an inquiry-based teacher? The process of “becoming” is, in reality, a very personal experience. No two journeys are the same, different paths may be followed, and your “mile markers” along the way will differ from those of others. But all the journeys should have one thing in common—time in the beginning to articulate answers to the essential question—what drives me to take this journey? The road to instructional renewal and reform can be a stimulating and adventurous one. The impetus to initiate or change your present teaching practice to an inquiry approach is most effective when the motivation stems from both an internal locus of control (from within yourself) as well as an external locus of control (from mentors, support

CHOOSING TO BECOME AN INQUIRY-BASED TEACHER

groups, and administrators). The combined motivational sources will take you on a determined journey brimming with enthusiasm. The passion you feel, coupled with the motivation you have, will spark a personal, self-directed drive. It is that self-directed learning that will, in turn, sustain your pursuit to becoming an inquiry teacher.

Self-Directed Learning In the words of the Chinese philosopher, Lao-tzu, “A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” Now let’s look into that first step. Self-directed learning is an integral aspect of becoming an inquiry teacher. Richard Boyatzis, a leading specialist in the change process, explains the five stages or discoveries in self-directed learning; that is, learning in which an individual intentionally develops and strengthens an aspect of his or her “self.” According to Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee (2002), “The steps do not unfold in a smooth, orderly way, but rather follow a sequence, with each step demanding different amounts of time and effort” (p. 109). The first step of discovery is assessing your present self—who you are right now, how you teach, and your deep-seated beliefs about how students learn. This step includes reflecting on your present strengths and weaknesses as a teacher and the instructional strategies you most often use to teach. The second step involves forming a desired image of your ideal self, where you reflect on your professional aspirations and the kind of teacher you want to be. In the case of becoming an inquiry-based teacher, determining this desired state motivates you to develop your inquiry skills and dispositions. As you begin to understand the type of teacher you want to be, you reflect on the values and commitment that will move you toward this goal. Goleman et al. (2002) call this the “fuel” that drives one through the difficult and often frustrating process of change. In the third step, you acknowledge the gap between the kind of teacher you are right now and the kind of teacher you want to be and consider a professional development plan that leads you from your present state to your desired state. Whether your plan becomes a formal document that you commit to writing or is planted firmly in your mind, it is essential that you formalize your action plan and determine the professional development— additional readings, college courses, online resources, professional conferences, collegial study groups—whatever you need that will move you closer to where you want to be. The more you commit to the plan, the more intrinsically rewarding the plan will become. The fourth step involves learning new instructional strategies and improving your performance in the classroom through continuous practice and reflection. This trial-anderror phase requires patience and persistence because not everything you try may work out quite as you expect. Student inquiries need constant refining. You will find yourself trying a new investigation, noting what went well and what you plan to do differently the next time you present that activity. The final step entails developing a support system, which often occurs throughout the self-directed learning process. A support system may include an experienced inquiry teacher, mentor, or role model. Or it may just be another teacher in your school who is as interested in inquiry as you are. Collaborating and teaming make the learning process less problematic and provide a vehicle for sharing your accomplishments and frustrations in a nonthreatening way. It also fosters a trusting relationship where two or more teachers can professionally share and discuss their students’ work.

55

56

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

Regardless of how you plan to begin increasing your capacity to teach through inquiry, do not do it alone. Seek out a friend or a group of people who share your values and beliefs about teaching and learning. Ongoing conversation with colleagues will help enhance your skills and development. Becoming an inquiry-based teacher will require creating and sustaining reflection practices and discourse with other inquiry teachers. For that reason, it’s imperative to develop a support network in which teachers share their lessons, accomplishments, and frustrations while offering encouragement and reassurance to each other. A local college or university science education department can be a resource for developing and facilitating a teacher study and support group. Finally, the school administration must demonstrate trust that teachers can make the appropriate curricular decisions that will bring inquiry and argumentation-based instructional strategies and change to the classroom level. Lack of support from peers and administration has discouraged too many teachers from building their capacity to develop a learner-centered classroom.

The Top 10 Reasons Why Teachers Say They Can’t Teach Through Inquiry Although the purpose of this chapter is to explore the essential steps in the professional journey for becoming an inquiry-based science teacher, let’s first address several frequently voiced statements by non-inquiry teachers about inquiry-based teaching (drumroll, please!). 10. I have heard a lot about inquiry, but I’m not sure what all the fuss is about.   9. Inquiry is not a big focus of the textbook I am using.   8. The students in my classes don’t have the background or the experience to do inquiry. They are basic skill kids who want to be given the answer from their teacher.   7. I’ve been teaching my way for 20 years. Lecturing works fine for me. Students absorb the information pretty readily.   6. Students need to be told how to do a science experiment. Learning to follow procedures and structure is important in the science lab.  5. Students learn best through lecture and follow-up discussion. They like doing worksheets. It keeps the class quiet. That’s what they are used to.   4. The labs in my teacher’s edition are pretty simple and straightforward. They tell the students what materials they need and how to do the lab. I feel more comfortable giving traditional labs. That’s the way I was taught.   3. I don’t have enough supplies and equipment to teach through inquiry.   2. When you teach through inquiry, you can lose control of the class.  1. I have a standardized curriculum and a final exam to teach to. I don’t have enough classroom time to do inquiry. You may have heard some version of these statements from teachers in your department. You may have even expressed some of these thoughts yourself. In any case, these

CHOOSING TO BECOME AN INQUIRY-BASED TEACHER

comments and the issues they raise are addressed in this book. Statements 9 and 10 are issues about understanding the meaning of inquiry and the nature of science (Chapter 1). Statements 7 and 8 are matters concerning the change process (Chapter 4). Statements 5 and 6 concern themselves with pedagogy (Chapter 5). Statements 3 and 4 are topics dealing with translating theory into practice and modifying existing labs into an inquiry format (Chapters 6 & 7), while statements 1 and 2 focus on managing and assessing the inquiry-based classroom (Chapters 8, 9, & 10).

Myths and Misconceptions About Inquiry-Based Teaching Embedded in the “Top 10” above are misunderstandings we hear about inquiry-based teaching. Without going into elaborate details about each, here are several likely misconceptions high school teachers may have about inquiry. Reflect upon each of the myths and misconceptions individually or discuss them in your study or support group. Model the process of argumentation by stating a rebuttal to each of the misconceptions. Use the templates and starter sentences provided in the Preface and Chapter 2 to phrase your refutations: •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••

Doing hands-on labs is the same as doing inquiry. Inquiry is unstructured and chaotic. Inquiry involves asking a lot of questions. Doing scientific inquiry is the same as using the scientific method. Only high-achieving students can learn through inquiry. Inquiry is the latest fad in teaching science. You can’t assess inquiry. Students learn about scientific inquiry from doing a science inquiry.

What’s Your Instructional Pie? In an earlier section on self-directed learning, you read that assessing your present “self” is an important first step in the journey to becoming an inquiry-based science teacher. The instructional pie activity helps you identify your present state of teaching for five common instructional methods and compare it to your desired state. After “baking” your instructional pie, you can ponder ways to advance from your present state to your desired state and plan the kinds of professional development needed to close the gap. To begin the activity, first consider the following six methods of teaching: •• Lecturing •• Discussing •• Demonstrating

·   Doing hands-on structured activities or labs ·   Doing problem-solving activities ·   Doing inquiry-based investigations

If you are working alone, briefly review the six methods above to yourself to have a clear sense of each. If you are working in a small group, spend a few minutes discussing each of the methods so that each group participant has a similar understanding of the method. Using the instructional pie handout (see Figure 4.1), fill out the first pie illustrating the percentage of time you presently spend on each of the six methods. Figure 4.2 shows the present pie for what might be a conventional high school chemistry teacher.

57

58

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

Figure 4.1  

What’s Your Instructional Pie?

Present Instructional Practice

Desired Instructional Practice

CHOOSING TO BECOME AN INQUIRY-BASED TEACHER

Figure 4.2  

Providing inquiry-based investigations Providing problem-solving activities

Telling/ presenting

Providing hands-on activities and labs

Showing demonstrations Discussing

After the present pie is completed, fill in the desired pie (where you would like to be 1 or 2 years from now) in reference to the same six methods. As you compare the two pies, you may observe a difference in the two pies, or you may confirm that your present situation is already where you want to be. In either case, determine the level of similarity and difference between the two. Share your pies with colleagues and look for percentages of similarity among those who want to become more inquiry based. Also recall the section on self-directed learning and reflect on the kinds of professional development options you need to close the gap between the two pies and continue your growth toward becoming an inquiry science teacher. If you are a risk taker, have each of your students anonymously fill out an instructional pie for their class and compare your perception to theirs. If the pies align, you have a good grasp of your students’ insight into the kinds of instruction methods you use in class. If there is a substantial difference in the pies, it’s obvious your perception does not match your students’ perception.

59

60

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

Steps in Becoming an Inquiry-Based Teacher Identified below are five essential steps in becoming an inquiry-based teacher. Each step, in essence, plays a significant part in developing your capacity to teach through inquiry and moving from ordinary to extraordinary. And although the book’s overall focus is on the seamless integration of inquiry and argumentation, for now we will focus just on the inquiry aspect. Later, we will see how argumentation folds fluidly into the process of having students design and carry out scientific investigations, as well as having them defend the findings from their investigations. The five essential steps include the following: 1. Build an understanding of inquiry. 2. Develop an understanding of the change process. 3. Construct a mind-set for the emerging pedagogy. 4. Translate new knowledge into practice. 5. Create a culture of inquiry. Each step is briefly described here but will be further elaborated on in the upcoming chapters. In Step 1, Build an understanding of inquiry, teachers come to recognize that science is based on questions. Science is also empirical—meaning it is based on observations and inferences. Thus understanding the nature of science (NOS) is an important part of becoming an inquiry teacher. And since science does not always proceed in a linear, step-by-step fashion, differentiating between the “scientific method” and scientific inquiry is equally vital. You will note the scientific method is in quotes. Some will argue that there is no one scientific method as commonly proposed in many science textbooks. Different questions require different methods to answer them. Not all investigations involve controlled experiments. As we come to understand scientific inquiry and the NOS, we realize that scientific knowledge is tentative and advances by engaging in inquiry and argumentation. Actually, since you recently read Chapter 1 on constructing an understanding of inquiry, you have already completed a significant portion of your first step. Congratulations! In Step 2, Develop an understanding of the change process, teachers grasp that the process of change and transformation of classroom practice takes 3 to 5 years and that systemic change includes the three Rs: •• Restructuring the science curriculum and lessons, including the modification of traditional labs •• Retooling the teacher’s instructional strategies and questioning skills through ongoing professional development •• Reculturing the classroom norms and relationships to foster inquiry-based strategies and a learner-centered environment Two books recommended as introductory readings about the change process are Spencer Johnson’s (1998) Who Moved My Cheese? and John Kotter and Holger Rathgeber’s

CHOOSING TO BECOME AN INQUIRY-BASED TEACHER

(2005) Our Iceberg Is Melting. Both are short, lighthearted books on dealing with change in your personal and professional life. The books are artful in taking the complex issue of change and presenting it in simple story form. Instructional change also involves setting professional goals and expectations. This was introduced previously in the instructional pie activity. By identifying the present and desired states, one self-assesses the present self, forms an image of the ideal self, and plans for appropriate professional development to improve performance through practice and reflection. Along with the change process, it is equally essential to monitor progress through rubrics and self-assessments. Step 3, Construct a mind-set for the emerging pedagogy, is one of the more important steps in becoming an inquiry teacher. As teachers change from a transactional to a transformational model of instruction, they give up the notion that students’ brains are like little sponges absorbing everything the teacher says and shift toward a constructivist model that suggests students need to negotiate meaning through exploration and discussion. Chapter 5 will help you develop a constructivist perspective on how students learn and will suggest a theory of learning that complements inquiry-based teaching. It will help us understand that knowledge is constructed: not imparted, transmitted, or absorbed. In Step 4, Translate new knowledge into practice, you will learn how to modify traditional, time-honored labs and make them more inquiry based. Whereas Chapters 1 through 5 deal with the meaning of scientific inquiry, Chapters 6 through 10 deal with the mechanics of inquiry. Like two sides of the same coin, both aspects are equally essential in the process of being an inquiry teacher. Translating new knowledge into practice also means enhancing your questioning skills. Inquiry is not just finding the right answers; it’s seeking the right questions. And finally, Step 5, Create a culture of inquiry, puts it all together. In Chapter 11 (the basis for Step 5) we will answer a series of questions: What is classroom culture? What does the teacher do in a culture of inquiry? What do students do in a culture of inquiry? What does an inquiry classroom look like?

Monitoring Your Progress Regardless of the path one takes, the transition to becoming an inquiry-based teacher usually follows four distinct stages: starting at the pre-inquiry approach, next exploring inquiry, followed by transitioning to inquiry, and finally practicing inquiry (Llewellyn, 2007; Marshall, Horton, & White, 2009). At each stage, teachers will exhibit increasingly effective inquiry strategies. One such protocol, the Electronic Quality of Inquiry Protocol or EQUIP (Marshall, Horton, & White, 2009), is designed to measure the quantity and quality of inquiry instruction being facilitated in K−12 math and science classrooms. The instrument does not seek to measure all forms of quality instruction—only those that are inquiry based in nature. For more information see http://iim-web.clemson.edu/?page_id=166. In following the five steps, you follow a plan for success. But a word of caution: Don’t expect to become an inquiry-based teacher overnight. Honing your skills and strategies takes time. I often say, “You need a Crock-Pot to cook inquiry, not a microwave!” In most cases, teachers may need years to polish their inquiry teaching techniques. There are no shortcuts to expedite the journey. Be patient, and with a smidgen of persistence, tenacity, and coaching, you will find yourself becoming more comfortable using the strategies and techniques that will bring about instructional change in your classroom.

61

62

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

In the final analysis, it’s important to realize how your goals and beliefs foster the legacy you create as a teacher. You are at the center in determining your legacy as an inquiry teacher. INQ  IRY We can’t spell inquiry without U

The Case of Angela Bicknell The following is a case study of Angela Bicknell, a third-year high school chemistry teacher at a rural high school in a conservatively minded K−12 school district. Angela is completing a master’s program at a nearby university that emphasizes a constructivist approach to learning via inquiry-based methods. As a requirement for one of Angela’s courses in the program, she was given the assignment of writing a vision statement for her teaching career. At first, Angela did not see the merits of the assignment. Later, though, she thought of the far too many teachers she had in high school whose goal it was to get through the textbook by the end of the school year. Angela eventually began to appreciate the value of constructing a career road map with benchmarks and mileposts along the way. At the conclusion of the assignment, Angela admitted to her professor, “If you have no professional development plan, one year becomes just like the next. I now have purpose and direction in my teaching.”

What Is a Vision Statement? A vision statement is a vibrant picture of a desired outcome that inspires and energizes you to achieve your targeted goal. A vision statement may initially be conceived in the mind, but sooner or later it must make its way to print to become truly operational. In Angela’s case, from her university coursework, she knew the value of connecting theory with practice. So for her vision statement she decided to use a publication from her coursework, Effective Science Instruction: What Does Research Tell Us? (Banilower, Cohen, Pasley, & Weiss, 2010). Angela wrote her vision statement in two parts; the beginning started with what “I know” about effective science instruction, followed by “therefore” statements that link research and practice. Here’s Angela’s vision statement, founded on six key assertions. 1. I know motivation plays a key role in student learning. If students aren’t motivated, they will not demonstrate considerable curiosity and wonder about the topic or an intrinsic desire to learn. Therefore, I choose to develop a culturally relevant curriculum that is based on students’ backgrounds and interests. The classroom climate will foster thoughtful and respectful consideration of alternative viewpoints and ideas, as well as a personal ownership of learning. I will provide cognitive “hooks” throughout each lesson (not just at the beginning) to keep their attention and interest levels sustained. I also know that getting high grades is key motivation for some students; therefore, I will remind students that learning is a lifelong process. 2. I know students are not coming into my chemistry class as empty vessels. At the high school level, they have already experienced the natural world for 15 to 17 years. However, their individual experiences with the topic I am teaching varies from student to student. Thus I cannot expect that all students will learn at the

CHOOSING TO BECOME AN INQUIRY-BASED TEACHER

same pace. Therefore, I want to use preassessments to elicit students’ prior knowledge and conceptions about the topic. I will then use that information to design lessons that link their prior knowledge with the new knowledge to be gained from the lessons I present. I also understand that students coming into my class have different abilities and levels of learning. I will show them what quality performance is and what it means to really know a subject by pressing all students toward a defined standard of excellence. Although I will provide extra help for those who need it, I know students progress at different rates and with different degrees of success. I will help students understand the standard for excellence, and I will push them closer toward reaching it. Unfortunately, some of my students will never fully meet the standard. That’s okay; I realize that. At least they will learn about excellence and the incremental steps toward reaching it. 3. I know my students learn best when they are engaging in a rigorous and relevant curriculum. Therefore, I will hold my students to rigorous content and performance standards. My learning goals will be clear, concise, measurable, and consistent with district, state, and national science standards. I will prepare meaningful experiences for students by designing frequent inquiry-based investigations that allow them to take ownership of the design and the implementation of their work. I will provide opportunities for students to justify and defend the findings from their investigations through argumentation. 4. I know argumentation is an essential skill for becoming a scientifically literate individual. Being versed in skepticism will help students to separate unfounded claims and speculations from those that are supported with sound evidence. This ability applies to their lives within the classroom as well as beyond the classroom walls. Consequently, as students examine their present conceptions and are faced with new knowledge that contradicts their prior knowledge, they will be undergoing a conceptual change. Therefore, I want to constantly encourage students to provide supporting details for their claims and conclusions. By doing so, students will become adept in backing up their statements with substantiated proof. This way, they will be less likely to be hoodwinked by fast-talking charlatans. I will foster critical thinking skills through scientific argumentation in my lessons and labs by having students propose, support, critique, refine, justify, and defend their positions and statements. Above all, I will help them think critically. 5. I know as students construct new knowledge, they need to make sense of the concepts being presented and weigh those new ideas against their previously held notions. Therefore, when I do present lectures, they will be engaging and relevant to the learning outcomes. The lectures will be designed to reinforce the inquiries and tasks students complete and will advance sensemaking of the material being studied. I will also integrate learning style strategies into my lessons. In addition, since students use different intelligences to make sense of the subject being studied, not all students learn best by the same technique. Each has his or her individual way to learn. I want to assist students in making sense of the topic by presenting the information in diverse formats using multiple intelligences. 6. Last, since teacher-pupil relationships are an essential aspect of any classroom, I desire to develop a personal relationship with every one of my students. My style will be amenable but within expectations of performance and respect. I will be open

63

64

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

and honest with them. In short, I will respect each student as an individual. I will also reach out to the families of my students and engage them as equal partners in the learning process.

Not Settling for Mediocrity Angela’s vision statement clearly demonstrates passion, drive, and commitment—three essential ingredients for a successful and productive teaching career. It also embraces a sense of professional empowerment where she feels in control of her classroom and accountable for student growth and success. It becomes obvious that Angela chooses to integrate specific aspects of her methodology based on her belief system about how students learn. Like a connection between claims and evidence, Angela’s vision statement supposes a direct connection between her philosophy about learning and how that philosophy plays out in her teaching. It is also clear through her statements that she is not settling for mediocrity, as she saw so many of her high school teachers do. For Angela, student engagement matters! From her coursework she is learning to soar beyond the cloud of mediocrity and to provide opportunities for her students to think critically and develop ownership for their own learning. At this time, Angela chooses to focus her energies on becoming an exemplary high school inquiry-based science teacher. In due course, she will become effective and efficient in managing her classroom instructional hours to make time for in-depth inquiry and argument-based opportunities. At only 28 years old, this apprentice teacher has chosen a road to follow and is already shaping her legacy as a teacher.

Questions for Reflection and Discussion 1. You probably had several inspirational teachers in high school. For many of us, they motivated us to become teachers. Think of one teacher in particular who has shaped you into the kind of teacher you would like to be. 2. The French writer, Antoine de Saint-Exupery, is best remembered for his 1943 novella, The Little Prince. He is quoted as saying, “If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up people to collect wood and don’t assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea.” How does this statement apply to becoming an inquiry-based science teacher? 3. Steve Jobs, the founder and CEO of Apple, made the following statement at the Stanford commencement address on June 12, 2005, “When I was 17, I read a quote that went something like: ‘If you live each day as if it was your last, someday you’ll most certainly be right.’ . . . Since then . . . I have looked in the mirror every morning and asked myself: ‘If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?’ And whenever the answer has been ‘No’ for too many days in a row, I know I need to change something. . . . Your time is limited. . . . Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. . . . Everything else is secondary.” How do the choices you make about teaching, your self-determination, and following your inner voice guide you on your journey in becoming an inquiry-based teacher? 4. Return to the section in the chapter that lists the top 10 reasons why teachers say they can’t teach through inquiry. For each reason, write a rebuttal based on what you know about effective inquiry teaching. Include a suggestion to counteract each reason provided.

5 Developing a Philosophy for Inquiry

O

ne of the prerequisites for becoming an inquiry-based teacher is embracing a philosophical mind-set founded on the ideals and principles of constructivism. Today, there are as many interpretations of constructivism as there are interpretations of inquiry, yet many high school science teachers may still be unaware of the prominence that constructivism has attained in the last 25 years and its implications for science education, instructional reform, and, specifically, inquiry-based classrooms. In this chapter, you will gain a deeper understanding of how high school students learn through a constructivist approach. You will also read several constructivist teaching strategies that parallel this philosophy of learning. Although it has implications for the classroom, constructivism is not about teaching strategies, nor is it about designing curriculum. Rather, it is one theory or philosophy about how an individual learns, one in which the student is embedded in active engagement and is constantly constructing and reconstructing knowledge through hands-on interactions. Because the tenets of constructivism align closely with the practice of inquiry, it becomes essential that inquiry-based teachers have a firm foundation in the propositions of constructivism. This chapter will (a) introduce the philosophy and historical development of constructivism that have shaped our understanding of how high school students learn science, (b) discuss how one’s prior knowledge and misconceptions can influence learning, and (c) present constructivist learning strategies compatible with inquiry- and learner-centered classrooms. By understanding constructivist principles, we can better envision our role as inquiry-based teachers. For that reason, it becomes crucial that science teachers interested in inquiry be able to articulate their philosophy of teaching and learning and apply it to classroom practice. After all, our values, beliefs, and even prejudices about teaching and learning are reflected in our classroom culture. Our classrooms, in a sense, mirror and resonate with what we believe are good teaching and learning.

65

66

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

What Is Constructivism? Constructivism is a theory about how we come to know what we know. It is founded on the premise that children, adolescents, and even adults construct or make meaning about the world around them based on the context of their existing knowledge. We do this by reflecting on our prior experiences. In this way, each of us constructs our own mental models, or schema, as we activate our experiences to develop new conceptual structures. In a constructivist point of view, the learner is constantly filtering incoming information based on his or her existing conceptions and preconceived notions to construct and reconstruct his or her own understanding. Thus, the meaning of “knowing” is an active, adaptive, and evolutionary process. The constructivist perspective is startlingly distinct from earlier views and theories about learning. Behaviorism, one earlier view, is built on the premise that learning is an acquisition or change in observable behavior initiated through stimuli and responses. Although behavioral psychology or operant conditioning is considered useful when applying positive and negative reinforcements, it does not account for the cognitive aspect of learning. Objectivism, occasionally paired with behaviorism, presumes that all knowledge exists externally and independently from the learner and that learning consists of imparting that body of knowledge from one person to another. Contrary to behaviorists’ and objectivists’ views, constructivists subscribe neither to the supposition that students “absorb” information from the teacher nor to the belief that knowledge is imparted, acquired, or transmitted from one individual to another. Constructivists believe that learning is self-regulating and socially mediated as the student actively engages, interacts, and operates within the confines of his or her environment. Learning, to the constructivist, is focused on cognitive, not behavioral, processes. Constructivists do not view the mind as a “blank slate” or an “empty vessel,” as in John Locke’s famous expression tabula rasa; teachers cannot dispense or pour information directly into a student’s head. In the constructivist approach, the student is an active participant in the learning process. Students enter our classrooms with years of prior knowledge and even misconceptions that greatly affect how they interpret and make meaningful interpretations of the phenomena being studied. According to the National Research Council (2000b), students come into the classroom with preconceptions about how the world works. If their initial understanding is not engaged, they may fail to grasp the new concepts and information that are taught, or they may learn for the purposes of a test but revert to their preconceptions outside the classroom. (p. 14) This chapter and the accompanying case studies focus on the attention science teachers need to place on what their high school students are thinking about as they undertake inquiry investigations.

Traditional Versus Constructivist Classrooms To construct an understanding of constructivism, let’s consider two classrooms: one traditional, teacher-centered, and one constructivist, student-centered. In this case study, Mrs. Hennessey, a biology teacher at Northshore High School, is presenting an introductory unit on how the leaf carries out photosynthesis to her general biology students. In this classroom, student desks are arranged in straight rows, with the teacher’s desk in the

DEVELOPING A PHILOSOPHY FOR INQUIRY

front center of the room. Mrs. Hennessey uses a single textbook for studying biology, along with several demonstrations and labs she has mastered from use over many years. During the unit, students take notes, fill out handouts and worksheets that emphasize rote memorization, and when time and supplies are available, perform laboratory activities that verify information that was presented on previous days. Mrs. Hennessey starts the unit by telling students that photosynthesis is the process in which green plants use light energy to make food. She goes on to explain that “photo” means “light” and “synthesis” means “to put together,” and she indicates that “photosynthesis” is quite an appropriate name for the process. Students then copy the formula for photosynthesis, in both words and chemical notation, as she writes it on the board. Mrs. Hennessey continues by explaining in detail the process of photosynthesis and the role that light, carbon dioxide, and water play in making food for plants. Later in the first day’s lesson, Mrs. Hennessey goes on to describe the production of sugar and oxygen as products in photosynthesis. The following day, she teaches the importance of photosynthesis by introducing the carbon dioxide cycle and the interdependence of plants and animals in their quest to survive. The teacher presents a lab experience to view the cross section of a leaf and to identify the different leaf cells. During the lab, students use the cross section and their textbooks to label the different cell layers and structures of the leaf. At the end of the lesson, students use their notes and textbook to prepare for a paper-and-pencil unit test. In the test, students are asked to define the term photosynthesis and state its formula. Another section includes labeling a cross section of a leaf similar to the illustration from the lab. In this classroom, Mrs. Hennessey is the information provider and views the students as passive learners who have come to the classroom to know and master a fixed body of information. Information is divided into distinct and separate parts, with little emphasis on the students internalizing the information. Mr. Travers is also a biology teacher at Northshore High School, and, like Mrs. Hennessey, he is presenting an introductory unit on photosynthesis to his general biology students. In Mr. Travers’s classroom, student desks are sometimes arranged in straight rows, sometimes in groups of four, and sometimes in the shape of a “U.” Mr. Travers allows the purpose of the lesson to determine the appropriate room setup. Mr. Travers uses several textbooks and primary sources for studying biology. He keeps a collection of Science and Scientific American magazines on the shelf for students, along with other science books and resources. Mr. Travers starts the lesson by having students think about and record what they know about the leaf as the food manufacturing site and encourages them to write down whatever comes to mind when they think about the term photosynthesis. After 2 minutes, he tells them, “Now turn to your partner and tell him or her your prior understandings about the word ‘photosynthesis.’ Take 2 minutes to share your thoughts and experiences about the word ‘photosynthesis’ with your partner.” At the end of the “pair and share” activity, he asks several students to share their understandings about photosynthesis with the class. As students share their ideas, Mr. Travers writes and arranges their thoughts in a concept map on the front board. The rest of the period is spent having students work in groups to view a prepared section of a leaf cross section and compare it to the illustration in the book. As students are viewing the leaf section, Mr. Travers walks around the room answering their questions and posing his own to students. The next day, students take notes from a brief presentation and overview on the cross section of the leaf as it relates to the first day’s activity of exploration and sharing

67

68

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

previous understandings. Mr. Travers now presents a question to the class: What would happen if you took away or changed one of the requirements for photosynthesis? This investigation provides an opportunity for students to choose an inquiry relevant to them and observe the changes in the leaf’s food-making process. In the investigation, some students choose to cover one or both sides of the leaf with Vaseline, peanut butter, or even nail polish. Others choose to cover the leaf with aluminum foil, wax paper, or clear transparent wrap. Some want to find out how light affects the rate of photosynthesis, while others want to know how different colored light affects the rate of photosynthesis. Still others investigate how the availability of carbon dioxide affects photosynthesis. As students carry out their investigations, they document and record their daily progress and findings in their science journals. Following the plant investigations, Mr. Travers reviews the process of photosynthesis and relates the process of photosynthesis as a “production system” in which ingredients such as carbon dioxide and water produce a sugar and a by-product—oxygen. He also reviews how the students’ findings in their investigations relate to the food-making process. He then introduces appropriate concepts and vocabulary terms related to photosynthesis, including stomata, chloroplast, chlorophyll, phloem, and xylem. To apply their understanding of photosynthesis, students extend their investigations to new situations by explaining how pollution from cars affects the growth rates of plants. For the unit test, students are given an envelope containing 18 small cards, each with a word or words for a different part of the leaf or pertaining to the process of photosynthesis. The words are as follows: Upper epidermis Lower epidermis Palisade layer Spongy layer Xylem Phloem Vascular bundle Guard cell Stoma

Chloroplast Chlorophyll Photosynthesis Autotroph Glucose Carbon dioxide Water Oxygen Light

The purpose of the assessment is to use the cards to create a concept map showing the interconnection of all the terms to the process of photosynthesis. In this classroom, Mr. Travers’s role is that of a facilitator rather than dispenser of information. In constructivist classrooms, teachers value the points of view students bring to the lesson and alter their agenda based on the prior knowledge and preconceptions of the students. In constructivist settings, emphasis is placed on the students working in groups and internalizing the information as they develop understandings of scientific phenomenon. Information is organized around holistic ideas and discrepant events that capture the students’ interest. By using analogies and having students raise their own questions, constructivist teachers constantly connect the students’ prior knowledge and experiences to new knowledge and concepts. According to Brooks and Brooks (1999), traditional and constructivist classrooms differ in terms of the curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Constructivist and inquirybased science classrooms also have a distinct difference from traditional science classrooms. The distinctions are summarized in the chart on the next page. Later in this chapter, you will see how constructivism has implications for teaching and learning science as it’s revealed through an investigation using yeast. For now, how

DEVELOPING A PHILOSOPHY FOR INQUIRY

Traditional Science Classrooms

Constructivist Science Classrooms

•• Classroom instruction is focused on a philosophy of learning where students’ minds are seen as “empty vessels” waiting to be filled with science facts and information delivered by the teacher •• Curriculum and lessons are presented with emphasis on fact-based retention and basic science process skills •• Instruction is centered on a teacher-led, fixed curriculum •• Daily lesson are delivered through a lecturebased, didactic approach on learning scientific facts, laws, principles, and theories •• Oral questions are posed by the teacher with a correct answer in mind •• Daily lessons are focused on textbooks, worksheets, and cookbook labs with a predetermined and expected outcome •• Students work in groups according to abilities or skill levels as assigned by the teacher •• Assessment is seen as a validation of the students’ mastery and understanding of facts and concepts presented in class

•• Classroom instruction is focused on a philosophy of learning where students negotiate knowledge by acting as theory builders, constantly testing and modifying their conceptual understandings •• Curriculum and lessons are presented with emphasis on concept-based “big ideas,” overarching themes, and scientific habits of mind •• Instruction is centered on a flexible balance between teacher-led standards and studentled interests •• Daily lesson are delivered through a variety of methods, including inquiry, problem-based learning, simulation, and role-playing •• Oral questions are posed by the teacher to solicit and assess students’ prior understandings, naive conceptions, and newly acquired knowledge •• Daily lessons are focused on multiple textbooks, primary and online resources, and handheld technologies •• Students work and frequently rotate in mixed ability groups by teacher assignment and student choice •• Assessment is seen as a means of preappraisal of student understandings, as well as an opportunity for formative and summative measures

many of the following characteristics that portray a constructivist unit of study can you identify from the isopod investigation you read in Chapter 3?   1. Knowing how adolescents learn has a bearing on how we approach teaching and learning.   2. Knowing educational theory gives meaning to our understanding about teaching and learning.   3. Demonstrating that it is essential to use concrete and manipulative materials to introduce formal concepts.   4. Starting with what the students know is an effective departure point for any science lesson.   5. Using explorations and time to “mess around” to introduce and sequence new knowledge, thus aligning with present learning theories.   6. Encouraging inductive and discovery learning that opens the doors to problemsolving and higher-level thinking skills.   7. Providing challenging activities stretches students’ thinking and problem-solving skills.  8. Using active learning encourages students to discover and construct new knowledge.

69

70

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

 9. Posing “What if . . .” and “I wonder . . .” questions facilitates assimilation and accommodation. 10. Allowing students to work in groups to share and communicate knowledge through argumentation, and to test ideas and theories against one another, makes learning a personal and social experience.

Historical Perspectives of Constructivism At many science education conferences, workshops, and seminars on learning theory, one of the most talked about topics among science educators today is constructivism. Although the theory is not new, recent developments about how the brain works have strengthened the constructivist model. Aspects of constructivist principles date back to the works of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Perhaps the first recorded constructivist was the Neapolitan philosopher Giambatista Vico, who worked in the field as early as 1710. Have you ever posed a question to a student and heard the response, “I know it, but I just can’t explain it”? According to most constructivists, we know something only when we can explain it. We begin our look at the process of learning by turning our attention to epistemology— the structure and origin of knowledge. We must first understand how knowledge is engendered to appreciate the potential of inquiry and argumentation as a means of attaining and negotiating conceptual meaning through scientific investigations. By first developing a sound understanding about how high school students learn science, we take a quantum leap into the practice and implementation of inquiry as a constructivist-based teaching strategy. The latter half of the 20th century produced an interest in understanding cognitive psychology and metacognition. During this century, recent advances in medicine and research have opened the door to understanding how the brain works in attaining new knowledge. The latest generation of theorists argues that learning develops within multiple structures of the brain. This new era has affixed merit to the theory of constructivism. Next, we will examine the research and philosophy of several cognitive scientists.

John Dewey John Dewey (1859–1952) is considered one of the twentieth century’s most influential educational reformers and was one of the first modern American constructivists. From his research at the University of Chicago, Dewey (1900, 1902, 1916) believed that learning and experience go hand in hand and that knowledge emerges from a personal interaction between the learner and the external environment. He felt that posing problems of significant interest that draw upon the student’s prior knowledge activates the learning process. Dewey felt that teaching should be an active process, including solving problems that interest students. He believed that problems posed to pupils too often involved the interests of the teacher rather than the interests of the students. Dewey’s model for learning also incorporates the student’s prior knowledge. He insisted that subject matter requires relevance to the learner. His teachings have also had a profound influence on environmental and outdoor education. Therefore, many inquiry science teachers align themselves to Deweyian philosophy.

DEVELOPING A PHILOSOPHY FOR INQUIRY

Jean Piaget Another influential 20th-century constructivist was Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget (1896–1980). Piaget began his career as a scientist studying bivalve mollusks. Later, while working at the Binet Institute in the early 1920s translating intelligence tests from English to French, he became interested in the mistakes children made on IQ tests. Unlike his predecessors who studied behavior through animals, Piaget concentrated his research on studying humans. Unfortunately, because his research was written in French, much of his work did not catch the attention of American cognitivists until the 1960s. Like Dewey, Piaget (1970) believed that knowledge is not “out there” somewhere, waiting to be discovered, but rather is a result of an interaction between the learner and the people or objects within the environment. Piaget was one of the first psychologists to shift the locus of learning from a behavioral aspect to a cognitive one. Piaget theorized that cognitive structures, called schemas, were the mental models that form by “acting on an object” and that schemas represent our ability to interpret incoming information. These schemas, in a sense, act as filters to assimilate new ideas. Unfortunately, one’s mental models or schemas also can be a result of misinformation, resulting in presently held naive beliefs or misconceptions. We will address the significance of misconceptions and how they affect learning later in this chapter. Piaget used the term operations to describe the way a child internalizes its interaction with the environment. The following is a brief summary of Piaget’s four developmental stages: Sensorimotor (birth–2 years): At this stage, the child learns to adapt to its environment and coordinate its motor actions through trial and error. Toward the end of this stage, the child begins to develop and use language to communicate needs and feelings. Preoperational (2–7 years): At this stage, the child begins to become aware of its own actions through thinking. The child also develops the ability to plan solutions and actions to solve problems. Logic and contradictions are not yet part of the child’s thinking. Concrete Operational (7–11 years): At this age, the preadolescent begins to develop the ability to think logically. Preadolescents can now perform many science process skills such as measuring, classifying, predicting, inferring, hypothesizing, and controlling variables. The preadolescent can also organize objects into sequences based on patterns and can explain the significance of the patterns to others. The student at this age can think about and apply reason to problems that involve using manipulative and concrete objects. At this point, however, little abstract thinking is experienced. Formal Operational (12 years and older): At this stage, the adolescent is able to think and to perform operations logically and abstractly. When faced with cause and effect relationships, the student can understand the interaction without the use of manipulative or concrete objects. At this stage, thinking goes beyond actual personal experience, and reasoning about ideas not experienced can usually be understood. In contrasting students at the levels of concrete and formal operations, Driscoll (1994) says that Inhelder and Piaget (1958) presented children and adolescents with a chemistry problem, in which they were to mix clear liquid chemicals from four beakers until they achieved a yellow color. Concrete operational children were rather random

71

72

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

in their approach to the problem, sometimes repeating combinations of chemicals they had tried before. In addition, they typically combined only two chemicals at a time, or all four, without considering combinations of three. By contrast, formal operational adolescents generated a systematic plan of testing chemical combinations until they found the solution. Moreover, they kept records of their tests and generated appropriate observations concerning their results. (p. 178) Piaget believed that although they progress at different rates, all humans go through these same four stages in mental development. Psychologists studying Piaget would later explain that the stages are not discrete and separate but continuous, as humans often display behaviors characteristic of the gray areas between the stages. Critics of Piaget’s findings would also argue that children can manifest characteristics of more than one stage and that, at times, they may temporarily regress from one level to another. Hester (1994) states that these formal operations (often seen in high school students) represent a new level of abstraction, of thinking about the possible as well as the actual, of making predictions, forming hypotheses, and thinking scientifically, which sets the adolescent apart from the child with his or her dependence on purely concrete objects and referents for thinking. (p. 155) Although Piaget’s research identified age 11 as the point at which children begin to move into formal levels of thinking, high school teachers know that many of their students still operate at a concrete level. As high school teachers use inquiry and argumentation strategies and provide opportunities for students to test their assumptions, describe relationships and patterns, justify and defend their claims, and use scientific reasoning, they propel the cognitive vehicles for students to make the transition from concrete to formal cognitive levels. However, during this transitional phase, preadolescents can demonstrate inconsistent reasoning and thought patterns concerning abstractions by showing illogical or flawed evidence for their assertions. What does Piaget’s theory mean to high school science teachers? It means that every day, high school science teachers open their doors to students who may exhibit either concrete or formal operational behaviors, or both. By understanding Piaget’s stages of cognitive development and being aware that students progress from concrete to formal operations during their middle and high school grades, high school science teachers can ease and accommodate the transition from one stage to another by providing a concrete, hands-on, and motivational experience before introducing a new, formal or abstract concept. By sequencing a lesson or unit of study from a hands-on mode to a lecture mode, rather than the other way around, teachers provide a lesson in a sequence compatible with the student’s cognitive development. This may seem, at first, counterproductive to a high school science teacher’s normal practice because most science teachers introduce a new concept by providing background information and preteaching vocabulary terms before doing a hands-on lab. By using a constructivist approach to lesson design, science teachers can plan a lesson or a unit that first engages the learner by providing a hands-on exploration or initial motivational discrepant event or quick lab, then explaining the concept, and finally extending the concept into an inquiry investigation or full laboratory experience. It takes time for high school science teachers to feel comfortable with this new notion of constructivist lesson design. After all, most of us were taught by high school and college teachers who lectured first and then gave us the hands-on experience later. This

DEVELOPING A PHILOSOPHY FOR INQUIRY

constructivist lesson format is called the 5E Learning Cycle and will be introduced later in the chapter. Although Piaget’s theory was never intended specifically for academic teaching, it holds a special interest for science teachers. In studying the transition that secondary school students make from concrete to formal operations, inquiry-based teachers understand that students need to explore a new concept through exploratory experiences before being introduced to the terminology and vocabulary associated with the concept. Introducing hands-on inquiry investigations first and saving the introduction of terminology and vocabulary development for later allows high school students to first engage in new experiences, test their theories and assumptions against their peers, and make meaning of their newly acquired knowledge before being introduced to new vocabulary terms. For non-inquiry teachers this seems like heresy, since many traditional teachers believe they first need to pre-teach vocabulary terms at the beginning of a lesson. The transformation of previously held conceptions to newly held conceptions is what Piaget called adaptation. According to Piaget, the process of adaptation occurs through assimilation and accommodation. Assimilation involves making use of new information and transforming new knowledge to fit existing schemas and mental models. In accommodation, mental models are altered, modified, or changed to accept or fit the newly perceived knowledge. Adaptation occurs when individuals encounter phenomena that are contrary to their presently held understandings. They judge the new events and make adjustments in their cognitive structures to accommodate the new situations. This results in the adaptation of new learning. In most cases, assimilation and accommodation function simultaneously. Piaget refers to this as equilibrium. That is, the individual is selfregulating his or her understanding and maintaining stability. At equilibrium, we are at ease with our presently held notions. Disequilibrium, on the other hand, occurs when one experiences a new phenomenon that does not neatly fit into his or her presently held schemas or models. Piaget called this cognitive conflict or cognitive dissonance. Causing disequilibrium and cognitive conflict is not all destructive. Often, constructivist teachers instill degrees of disequilibrium to cause individuals to give up misconceptions or undergo cognitive change. Constructivists believe that when a new event doesn’t fit an individual’s presently held belief system, it can possibly be discarded because it doesn’t fit with the person’s cognitive model of understanding. Assimilation, accommodation, and disequilibrium are the basis for constructivist thinking, with conceptual change constantly at work. According to Piaget, for conceptual change to occur, the individual must be faced with new conceptions that are inconsistent with his or her presently held beliefs. The individual must also acknowledge dissatisfaction with his or her present schema and accept the plausibility of the new concept, thus substituting the new concept for the previously held one. There will be more about this topic in the upcoming sections. Thus, Piaget’s theory has four key principles: 1. People develop through “stages” of cognitive growth. 2. Knowledge is a result of ever-changing social interactions between the individual and the environment. 3. Knowledge is constantly being constructed and reconstructed from previous and new experiences. 4. Cognitive growth is self-regulating within the individual and between the individual and the interaction with the physical and social environment.

73

74

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

Lev Semenovich Vygotsky Russian psychologist Lev S. Vygotsky was born near Minsk in western Russia in 1896, the same year as Jean Piaget. He received a law degree in 1917 from Moscow University but later turned his attention to medicine and psychology, with a specific focus on learning disabilities. With the prevailing behaviorist notion that animal behavior can be applied to understand how humans learn, Vygotsky (1979) contrasted animal and human behavior by describing the abilities of humans as uniquely specific to the species. Vygotsky’s theories on cognitive development were unique from those of his contemporaries, and although many of his theories on teaching and learning were never backed up with empirical data because of his early death in 1934, researchers recently have expanded on his theories and framework on preschool and early childhood education, applying them to innovation in teaching at all grade levels K−12. Vygotsky made a significant contribution to cognitive development and the theory of constructivism by writing frantically for the last 3 years before his death from tuberculosis at the age of 37. Most of his writings were still incomplete at the time of his death and weren’t translated into English until the early 1960s. His work Thought and Language (1934/1962) did not capture the attention of Western constructivists until its translation in 1962. Vygotsky and Piaget shared similar thoughts on constructivism; however, Vygotsky was not concerned with identifying stages of mental development. He explored the influence of language and social processes on cognitive development, as well as the accomplishments a child could achieve when solving a problem alone as compared to accomplishments achieved with assistance from an adult. Two basic principles from the Vygotskian framework include the role language plays in mental development and the importance of social interaction within the context of learning. Whereas Piaget’s theory about learning focused mainly on the interaction with physical objects, Vygotsky believed that the construction of knowledge is predicated on manipulation but additionally is socially mediated. In his work, Vygotsky emphasized the importance of social interaction between the learner and his or her peers; thus, he was labeled as a “social constructivist.” According to Vygotsky (1978), an “important factor in social learning was the young person’s ability to learn by imitating and modeling. Interacting with adults and peers in co­operative settings gave young children ample opportunity to observe, imitate, and model” (pp. 79–80). One of his foremost known theories is the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). According to Vygotsky, students’ ability and skills to solve problems or tasks can be categorized into two levels: 1. Skills the student possesses to perform tasks independently 2. Skills the student lacks (at an independent level) so that tasks can be performed only with assistance from another student or adult The independent level is a lower or minimum level of performance where students can operate unassisted. The assisted level is a higher or maximum level where children can reach a more complex performance with the help or assistance from another. The zone is an arbitrary continuum or area between these two levels. Most traditional teaching is focused more closely on what students can achieve independently, but a constructivist teacher teaches to the upper zone by providing assistance to students’ performance through prompts, leading questions, hints and clues, or asking students to clarify their thoughts about the phenomenon being studied. Although this interaction can be

DEVELOPING A PHILOSOPHY FOR INQUIRY

interpreted as an “expert-novice” relationship, Vygotsky believed that all students could enhance their learning through social mediation with peers or an adult. One instructional strategy based upon the idea of the ZPD is “scaffolding,” a metaphor for building construction. Scaffolding provides a level of support that enables the learner to accomplish a task that, normally, is beyond his or her current capabilities. In scaffolding situations, the teacher purposefully and intentionally designs a performance task just beyond the independent level. Providing guidance at first, the teacher then gradually decreases the assistance until the student can take more responsibility for completing the task. Vygotsky suggests that teachers provide problems and tasks just beyond the student’s present capabilities; through cooperative learning groups and modeling from adults, the student is scaffolded to high levels of thinking and performance. To provide an example of scaffolding, I’ll use the day I taught my daughter, Janice, to ride a two-wheeled bike. She was the only one in her 4th-grade class who wasn’t riding a bike without training wheels. That was enough of an incentive for Janice to ask me for help. We got the bike out of the garage and headed for the street. At first, she practiced balancing on the bike without the training wheels while I held the bike upright. Next, we moved on to short spurts where Janice pedaled and I ran alongside, holding the bike upright. With one hand on the back of the seat, I held the bike while she pedaled down the street. I can still recall her saying, “Daddy, don’t let me go!” Well, what she didn’t know, as I ran alongside the bike for what seemed an eternity, was that I was sporadically letting go of the bicycle seat, allowing Janice to ride on her own. “I’ve got you,” I said. “Just keep pedaling!” Nearly out of breath, she began to gain confidence in balancing without assistance. After a few spills and some scraped knees, she gained more confidence and achieved the goal of riding the bike on her own. In many ways, good constructivist teachers teach in the same way. They are consciously aware of the prompts and assistance they need to provide to have their students achieve at higher levels of academic performance. Constructivist and inquiry-based teachers do not make the task easier; rather, they provide the appropriate level of support and assistance for students to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills in science. Constructivist and inquiry-based teachers are also constantly aware of shifting the onus of responsibility from the teacher to the student, enabling the student to become a more independent learner. Sometimes unknowingly, high school teachers use Vygotskian principles by implementing guided, semi-guided, and independent approaches to providing tasks to students. The teacher begins by providing a mental challenge task to the student. With help from the teacher or a peer, the student is guided to the solution and begins to understand the nature of the concept. With the second problem, the student is provided a semi-guided practice to gain confidence and control over the task. Presented with a third problem, the student functions independently at solving the task. The teacher models appropriate behaviors and assists students in working at levels that stretch their imagination, thinking, and abilities. As the communication exchanges between the student and the teacher continue, the student begins to construct and mediate an understanding of the topic.

Constructivism Today Constructivism today is having an increasingly significant impact on educational reform and more frequently is viewed as the prevailing theory of how individuals learn, especially preadolescents and adolescents at the high school level. Currently, the majority of K−12 exemplary teachers, leaders, and reformers in science education carry the constructivist

75

76

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

torch for innovation in teaching and learning science. Those interested in learning more about constructivism and its implications to inquiry and argument-based teaching are encouraged to see the readings listed in Resource A. In summary, key points in constructivism include the following: 1. The senses are conduits to assimilating new knowledge. 2. The learner’s existing or presently held understandings determine what new situations are accepted or ignored. 3. The learner’s existing or presently held understandings determine how new situations are interpreted. 4. Knowledge is not transmitted from one individual to another. Communication is transmitted, but communication or incoming information is not knowledge. Knowledge is constructed in the mind by the learner attempting to make linkages between new and previously stored knowledge within the brain. 5. The learner uses linkages to construct new understandings. 6. The learner’s understanding is constantly undergoing construction and reconstruction. 7. Learning is both personally (reflection) and socially constructed (testing one’s model against peers). 8. Inquiry is a viable teaching strategy for testing the degree of fit between one’s presently held theories and the scientific explanations of how the world actually seems to be.

Metacognition It seems appropriate at this point to present a concept that underlies basic constructivism and inquiry philosophy—metacognition. Metacognition is a term many science teachers might have heard but seldom use in their everyday language. It is, however, a concept that is fundamental to what we do and say as inquiry- and argument-based science teachers. Metacognition refers to the awareness and regulation of one’s own learning process. It encompasses an internal conversation or reflective perspective in which an individual examines his or her own thinking and learning. Metacognition is of special interest to inquiry- and argument-based teachers because it focuses the responsibility of learning on the learner and the linkage of previously held notions to new information and understandings. According to the National Research Council (2000b), “A metacognitive approach to instruction can help students learn to take control of their learning by defining learning goals and monitoring their progress to achieve them” (p. 18). The NRC goes on to state, “Children can be taught strategies, including the ability to predict outcomes, explain to oneself in order to improve understanding, note failures to comprehend, activate background knowledge, plan ahead, and apportion time and memory” (NRC, 2000b, p. 18). Metacognition strategies can be promoted and implemented in the high school science classroom by providing time for students to engage in self-reflection and to make additions, corrections, and revisions to their work. These strategies are successful in helping students use previously known information and transfer it to new situations. Problem solving, when anchored with effective and strategic questioning strategies, also serves as

DEVELOPING A PHILOSOPHY FOR INQUIRY

a vehicle for fostering metacognition and critical thinking. Other metacognitive strategies include the use of concept maps (Novak, 1990, 1998). Concept maps serve as vehicles that illustrate the hierarchical connections among related entities in all areas of science. By using concept maps, high school students practice organizational skills and develop relationship patterns. Concept maps are also excellent tools for self-assessment. Collaboration and reflection, two key components of metacognition, often are facilitated during the inquiry process through cooperative learning groups and students using journals to record their thoughts and ideas during the course of a scientific investigation. As an encouraging note to teachers, findings suggest that metacognitive skills can be taught to students regardless of their innate ability and result in higher achievement (Baird, Fensham, Gunstone, & White, 1989; Nolan, 1991; Novak & Gowin, 1989). Developing a classroom culture of inquiry and argumentation provides an excellent opportunity for teachers to engage students in scientific reasoning, decision making, and reflection—all important aspects of metacognition.

How Adolescents Learn Have you ever heard a teacher say, “Those kids’ minds are just like sponges soaking up knowledge?” Although some educators frequently describe an adolescent’s learning from a behaviorist/objectivist perspective, constructivist teachers view learning quite differently. Constructivists perceive learning as a process by which the student is a “theory builder.” In constructivist philosophy, one believes that knowledge is not imparted, accumulated, absorbed, or transmitted from one individual to another, the sender to the receiver. Rather, knowledge and meaning is constantly being assimilated and accommodated in the mind of cognizant beings through interpretations of their experiences and from the communication of language with others.

Prior Knowledge Adolescents bring many levels of scientific understanding to our high school classrooms. This can be simultaneously necessary and problematic. On one hand, their prior knowledge, along with their presently held models and theories, shapes how they interpret the natural world and new scientific information; on the other hand, prior knowledge, in the form of misconceptions, can mask the way information is interpreted and lead to further misunderstandings. David Ausubel (1968) once said, “The most important single factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows; ascertain this and teach him accordingly” (p. vi). But how, you might ask, can I get inside the heads of 28 high school students to assess their prior knowledge? Before beginning a lesson on evolution, sedimentary rocks, organic chemistry, or quantum physics, consider trying a few strategies to assess their pre-understandings. Students’ prior knowledge can be ascertained simply by asking, “What do you know about [a particular subject]?” Tell students to write down on a paper whatever they know about the subject you are about to introduce. They can make a list, write a short paragraph, construct a concept map, draw a picture, or use any method that is most convenient for them. After a few minutes, pair each student with a partner to share what each recorded. Tell them that they each get a minute to share what they wrote with their partner. Next, tell them to compare their statements and look for similarities and differences. After another 2 minutes, you can ask individual students to share their

77

78

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

statements with the entire class while you record their comments on the board or overhead, making a list or a concept map. Review their presently held conceptions and, to yourself, make mental notes of any glaring misconceptions that need to be addressed later in the unit. Usually, simply going around the room and listening to student conversations is a productive way to assess students’ present understandings. As you visit each group of students, be especially attentive to inconsistencies in their thoughts and conversations. Another strategy for assessing students’ prior knowledge involves conducting misconception interviews. Pose a question or provide a task to three students at random a few days before starting a new unit. Have the students think aloud and verbalize their understandings as they perform the task. Again, listen attentively for any misconceptions or naive conceptions they raise during the interview. If misconceptions arise during the interview, anticipate that other students may have similar conceptions. This will allow you to adjust and plan your lessons accordingly. Other preassessment strategies include giving a simple pretest or using a case study discussion to elicit prior knowledge. Teachers also can give students small cards, each containing a vocabulary word that will be used in the upcoming unit. Have students arrange the cards to make a concept map. Tell them to write linking words that connect one card to another. Understanding the prior conceptions of every student in your class is nearly impossible, but by using these suggestions, teachers can anticipate many or most naive conceptions and start a lesson from the students’ point of view.

Misconceptions Everyone has a set of beliefs, conceptions, and understandings. They are part of the models and theories we hold to make sense of the world around us. Duit and Treagust (1995) suggest that at all ages students hold conceptions about many phenomena and concepts before they are presented in the science class. These conceptions stem from and are deeply rooted in daily experiences because they have proved to be helpful and valuable in daily life. (p. 47) These conceptions that students hold are sometimes grounded in scientific truth and other times are conceived through intuitive, yet incorrect, assumptions. Educators and cognitive psychologists often refer to these incorrect models as misconceptions, but because the conceptions are conceived from what the students believe to be reality, more appropriate terms may be naive conceptions, preconceptions, alternative conceptions, or intuitive conceptions. Preconceptions play a major role in how students interpret new incoming information. Consider the case of an 11th-grade general physics class. Ms. Nolan is introducing the concept of pendulums and poses the question, “What affects the number of swings a pendulum will make in 30 seconds?” Let’s listen as Ms. Nolan works with two students, Christy and Kara. Ms. Nolan: Ladies, what factors do you think affect the number of swings a pendulum makes? Christy:

I think it’s the weight at the end of the string.

DEVELOPING A PHILOSOPHY FOR INQUIRY

Kara:

Yeah, that sounds good. It’s the weight.

Ms. Nolan: What makes you think that? Kara:

Because when you swing on a swing, some people can go higher than others. So . . . (pause) . . . your weight can affect how high you swing.

Christy:

I remember swinging my sister. She couldn’t go as high as I could because, I guess, I weigh more. That sounds right.

Kara:

I think I remember talking about this in Mr. Farrell’s science class in the 8th grade.

Ms. Nolan: Now, make a hypothesis about how the weight, but let’s call it the mass— how the mass affects the number of swings the pendulum makes. Kara:

The more mass, the more swings the pendulum will make.

Ms. Nolan: All right, how could you design an investigation to test that hypothesis? Christy:

We would have to set up the pendulum and tie a paper clip to the end of the string. Then we could open up the paper clip to form an “S” hook and add different amounts of washers to the paper clip. We could start with one washer and keep adding a washer until we had five washers on the hook.

Ms. Nolan: Good! How far will you pull back the washers before releasing them? Kara:

I’d say we should pull the washers back halfway, to a 45-degree angle.

Ms. Nolan: Will you change the angle of release? Kara:

No, that will be the same for each trial.

Ms. Nolan: And how many trials will you do? Christy: One? Kara:

No, I think we should do three and then take the average.

Christy:

Yeah, three sounds good.

Ms. Nolan: Now what about the length of the string. Will that change? Kara:

No, that will remain the same for all the trials.

Ms. Nolan: Why is that? Kara:

We can have only one variable to affect the outcome of the experiment.

Ms. Nolan: And what’s that? Christy:

The number of washers.

Kara:

Actually, it’s the mass.

Ms. Nolan: Very good. Nice job! Now set up your experiment, and call me over when you have your data. (Ten minutes later, Christy calls Ms. Nolan over to their table.) Ms. Nolan: Well, what did you find out? Christy:

I think our calculations are wrong. We got the same number of swings for all three trials and with all the different washers.

79

80

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

Kara:

We must have made a mistake somewhere. We got 12 swings for all the trials and washers. What did we do wrong?

Ms. Nolan: Did you time the number of swings the same for all the trials? Kara:

Yeah, we used 10 seconds for each time.

Christy:

Something is wrong with our data.

Ms. Nolan: What is the relationship between the mass and the number of swings? Christy:

According to our data, the mass had no effect on the number of swings the pendulum made.

Kara:

Is our hypothesis wrong?

Christy:

No, something is wrong with our data. Let’s do it all over again.

Ms. Nolan: Well, before you do the experiment all over again, what else might affect the number of swings the pendulum makes? Kara:

I’m not sure.

Ms. Nolan: Could it be how far you pull back and release the washers? Christy:

That might be it, but I still think something is wrong with our data.

Ms. Nolan: Try to test the effect of the release point on the number of swings the pendulum makes. Design an investigation to test the release point, and call me back when you’re done. Be sure to write a hypothesis first before actually carrying out your procedure. (Ten minutes later, Christy again calls Ms. Nolan over to their table.) Christy:

I don’t believe this. We keep getting the same number of swings each time.

Kara:

We got 12 swings, the same as before.

Ms. Nolan: Wait a minute. Are you saying you changed the mass and it had no effect, then you changed the release point and that still had no effect? Kara: Yup. Christy:

This is very confusing. I don’t know what’s going on. Something’s fishy!

Ms. Nolan: Okay, let’s make sense of this. You tried the mass and it had no effect. Then you tried the release point and it still had no effect. What else can you try? Christy:

I don’t know. Something is really fishy here.

Kara:

What about the length of string? Can we try that?

Ms. Nolan: Okay, that’s a good idea. Go back and design a new investigation to see if the length of the string affects the number of swings the pendulum makes. What variable will you change? Kara:

The length of string.

Ms. Nolan: What will remain constant in your experiment? Christy:

The number of washers and the release point?

Ms. Nolan: Great! You got it! (Ten minutes later, Christy calls Ms. Nolan over to their table.)

DEVELOPING A PHILOSOPHY FOR INQUIRY

Kara:

I think we got it. When we changed the length of string, it changed the number of swings the pendulum made. The shorter the string, the more swings. The longer the string, the fewer swings it made.

Christy:

That’s weird. I thought it was going to be the mass, not the length of the string that affected the number of swings.

Ms. Nolan: Where did you get your original idea? Christy:

I don’t know. I guess it was from watching kids play on the playground swing. It just seemed normal to say that the mass would make a difference. So our calculations weren’t wrong. It really was the length of the string.

Ms. Nolan: Now, when you came into the lab this morning, what did you think affected the swing of the pendulum? Christy:

I thought it was the weight or mass.

Kara:

Me too!

Ms. Nolan: What do you think now? Christy:

It’s definitely the length of the string, not the mass.

Ms. Nolan: Did you give up on your “mass theory”? Kara:

I know I did.

Christy:

We both did.

Ms. Nolan: Now, let me ask you one more question. In the beginning of the lab, if I told you that the mass did not affect the swing of the pendulum, but it was the length of the string, would you believe me? Kara:

I don’t think so.

Ms. Nolan: Why not? Christy:

We had to do it ourselves. We had to actually test it to change our minds.

Ms. Nolan: Great job today! The case of the swinging pendulum reminds us that rote learning does not usually facilitate change in conceptual understandings, especially when the misconception is deeply held. Did you notice that Kara read about pendulums in the 8th grade? Keep in mind that misconceptions can be stubborn. In this case, Christy and Kara held, probably for 15 years, the naive conception that the mass affected the number of swings. The authority of a teacher is not often strong enough to change students’ previously held conceptions and make accommodations in their cognitive structures. Combining a constructivist approach using both hands-on and minds-on strategies does have that strength.

Conceptual Change Theory Now let’s reflect on what we read about cognitive learning theory and apply it to the case of the pendulums. According to Piaget (1970), people form networks or schemas within the brain to store information. Both Kara’s and Christy’s prior experience on the playground helped them to believe that mass affects the swing of the pendulum. All incoming information is now translated through the student’s schema. When a new situation arises

81

82

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

that is inconsistent with a child’s present schema (such as the data from the mass experiment), the student may either disregard the new information because it doesn’t fit with the presently held notion, or he or she may change or give up the previously held notion and accept a new notion based on new evidence. Driscoll (1994) points out that questioning one’s beliefs and prior conceptions can be threatening to students and lead to defensive moves. In this case, Ms. Nolan was very careful not to ridicule their previously held models, but instead she effectively posed questions and prompts to lead Christy and Kara to a new level of understanding. When a child accepts a new model, it is probably more useful, makes more sense, or is more plausible than the previously held model. Keep in mind that children, adolescents, and even adults often are reluctant to give up their presently held models and misconceptions despite what their teachers or friends tell them. As you read before, misconceptions are stubborn and sometimes very resistant to change. As a teacher once said, “Be careful what you put into a student’s head; chances are, once it’s in, it may never come out.” Conceptual change is an integral part of the learning process. Given a new situation, it is the individual learner who must recognize his or her present conception about the observed phenomenon, evaluate the conception in light of other explanations and possibilities, and then decide whether to retain the present conception or reconstruct the conception based upon the plausibility of the new experience. High school students often test their theories and models through interactions with their peers, one of the most influential aspects of their lives. When their observations and experiences continue to match their presently held theories and those of their peers, the experiences are assimilated, and the model is reinforced. When their observations and experiences do not match their presently held theories, either the experience can be discounted because it doesn’t align with their understanding, or the model can be accommodated by a conceptual change to include this new experience. Adolescents then continue to test their ideas, beliefs, and models through ongoing observations. Assimilation is the filtering and integration of stimuli, concepts, and external elements within the context of existing knowledge and schema, whereas accommodation is the modification and adjustment of cognitive structures to new situations. Working together, states of assimilation and accommodation result in cognitive equilibrium and the conceptual change theory. Posner, Strike, Hewson, and Gertzog (1982) suggest that individuals will undergo a conceptual change when the following conditions exist: 1. They must become dissatisfied with their existing conceptions. 2. The scientific conception must be intelligible. 3. The scientific conception must be plausible. 4. The scientific conception must be useful in a variety of new situations. Think about the last time you changed your mind about something. What caused you to change your mind? Which of the above conditions facilitated the conceptual change process? How was your previously held conception different from the newly held conception? The history of science is a story with theories and models that are continually tested, refined, and changed over time. This is often orchestrated through the practice of scientific argumentation and reiterates the importance of having students well versed in the

DEVELOPING A PHILOSOPHY FOR INQUIRY

language of argumentation. Youngson (1998) tells us that getting it wrong is often the way science advances. According to Youngson, “We are prisoners of our own experience” (p. 2). Consider Ptolemy, who placed Earth in the center of the solar system, or Lamarck, who proposed a theory of evolution based on the length of the giraffe’s long neck. Do you remember the hoopla and fiasco about cold fusion? Yet probably no other theory has changed as much as that of the structure of the atom. In words that have been attributed to Thomas Huxley (1899), “The great tragedy of science—the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”

Making Sense of Language If we were to think that knowledge is imparted solely through language between teacher and students, why do teachers often find themselves teaching a concept one day and discovering the next day that the students just did not “get it”? If my teaching philosophy was based upon assumptive learning, I might assume that learning occurs because the students are listening to me, the teacher. But just because students are listening to me does not mean that they are always making sense of the words coming out of my mouth. Words and language are sensory inputs that the learner must act upon to construct meaning. Consider the case of a biology class just beginning a unit on the parts of the cell. On the first day of the unit, Mrs. Bell introduces the various cell organelles by writing their names and functions on the board. As students are copying notes, she is spelling out words and phrases such as mitochondria, ribosome, endoplasmic reticulum, Golgi bodies, and nuclear membrane. The words are part of the sender’s (the teacher’s) everyday language and experience, but not part of the receivers’ (the students’). In this case, the terms make perfect sense to the teacher but may not mean anything at this point to the students. Thus, language is an important aspect of learning in a constructivist approach. The student needs a language connection, based upon his or her previous experience, to make sense of what is currently being said. We can see in the organelle lesson that the teacher had the cognitive structure (schema) to make sense of these terms. In the case of students without the cognitive structure to make sense of these terms, the words enter the brain through the ear, look for connections, and, finding none, get filtered out. Students are left with puzzled looks on their faces.

The 5E Learning Cycle There are several implications to the constructivist learning model. The 5E Learning Cycle is one of them. Like constructivism, the 5E Learning Cycle is not new. It was originally proposed for elementary school science programs in the early 1960s by J. Myron Atkin and Robert Karplus (1962) and further documented by Lawson, Abraham, and Renner (1989), Beisenherz and Dantonio (1996), Marek and Cavallo (1997), Bybee (1997), Abraham (1997), and Colburn and Clough (1997). In the last 20 years, however, it has become a popular model for high school teachers too. Many articles in The American Biology Teacher refer to the learning cycle approach as an effective lesson format. In addition, the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS), a premier curriculum developer in the area of biology, uses the 5E format for its instructional model. Unlike traditional three-step lesson plans in science that begin with introducing new vocabulary, then provide a

83

84

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

step-by-step lab to verify the information presented, and finally finish with an end-ofchapter problem or test, the 5E Learning Cycle model (see Figure 5.1) is a constructivist teaching strategy that includes five stages consistent with cognitive theories of how learning occurs: 1. Engagement 2. Exploration 3. Explanation

4. Elaboration or Extension 5. Evaluation

Figure 5.1   The Learning Cycle

Engage

Evaluate

Elaborate or Extend

The Learning Cycle

Explore

Explain

During the Engagement stage, the teacher sets the stage for learning. This is accomplished by stating the purpose of the lesson. Often, the teacher introduces the topic of the lesson and states the expectations for learning by explaining what students should know and be able to do by the end of the lesson or unit. The Engagement phase is also a means of getting the students’ attention and focus. By using attention-grabbing demonstrated inquiries and discrepant events, the teacher creates ways to “hook” students into learning. Discrepant events generate interest and curiosity that set the stage for inquiring about a particular phenomenon. Discrepant events serve to create cognitive dissonance— or, in Piaget’s words, disequilibrium—because the observation of such events does not readily assimilate into the students’ presently held understanding. Because the observations made from discrepant events are counterintuitive to the students’ prior experience, the students quickly activate questions. From a constructivist perspective, the Engagement phase also provides an opportunity for the teacher to activate learning, assess prior knowledge, and have students share their prior experiences about the topic. During the Engagement stage, the teacher can note possible naive conceptions or misconceptions stated by the students. These misconceptions can be addressed during and after the students have an opportunity to work through the Exploration and Explanation stages. It should be noted that it is nearly impossible for any teacher to fully ascertain all the misconceptions held by all the

DEVELOPING A PHILOSOPHY FOR INQUIRY

students. The learning cycle, specifically the Engagement stage, does, however, provide the teacher with a means of assessing students’ current beliefs and understandings. The Exploration stage is an excellent place to engage high school students in inquirybased labs or guided inquiries. During the Exploration stage, students raise questions, develop hypotheses to test, and work without direct instruction from the teacher. They go about collecting evidence and data, recording and organizing information, sharing observations, and working in cooperative groups. The Exploration stage allows students to build on a common experience as they carry out their investigations. This common experience or exploration is essential because students will enter the classroom with different levels of experience and knowledge about the topic being studied. The Exploration stage allows all students to experience hands-on learning and helps level the playing field within a culturally diverse classroom. The Exploration stage also provides opportunities for students with diverse experiences to share their different understandings and broaden the perspective of the entire class. In terms of Piaget, it also scaffolds the student from a concrete, hands-on experience to a formal, minds-on experience coming up next in the Explanation stage. During the teacher-directed Explanation stage, the teacher facilitates data- and evidence-processing techniques for the individual groups or entire class (depending on the nature of the investigation) from the information collected during the exploration. Information is discussed and analyzed, and the teacher often explains the scientific concepts associated with the exploration by providing a common language for the class to use. This common (or scientific) language helps students articulate their thinking and describe their investigations and experiences in scientific terms. The teacher can continue to introduce details, vocabulary terms, and definitions to the lesson as students assimilate their understanding against the scientific explanation. This can be accomplished by using direct instruction/lecturing, audiovisual resources, online sources, and computer software programs. Here, the teacher uses the students’ prior experiences to explain the concepts and attempts to address misconceptions uncovered during the Engagement or Exploration stages. The Explanation stage is sometimes called the “Concept Development” stage because evidence and newly developed concepts are assimilated into the cognitive structure of the student. During the Explanation stage, students may work to assimilate or accommodate new information as they make sense of their understanding, constructing new meaning from their experience and conceptual change. During the Elaboration or Extension stage, the teacher helps reinforce the concept by extending and applying the evidence to new and real-world situations outside the classroom. This stage also facilitates the construction of valid generalizations by the students, who also may modify their presently held understandings of the phenomena being studied. During the Elaboration stage, teachers often provide continual investigations in the form of guided and self-directed inquiries. These more open-ended investigations augment greater student ownership than the more structured inquiry presented during the Exploration stage. The Elaboration stage is a perfect setting for scientific argumentation. Whether using the findings from the investigation from the Exploration stage or designing and conducting a whole new inquiry, teachers can use this leg of the cycle to have students defend and justify their finding in the form of claims and supportive evidence. During the Evaluation stage, the teacher brings closure to the lesson or unit by helping students summarize the relationship between the variables studied in the lesson and posing higher-order questions that help them make judgments, analyses, and evaluations about their work. Connections among the concepts just studied and other topics can be illustrated by using a concept map. Here, the teacher can compare the prior knowledge

85

86

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

that was identified during the Engagement stage with the newly formed understanding gained from the lesson. On the assessment side, the teacher will provide a means for students to assess their learning and make connections from prior understandings to new situations that encourage the application of concepts and problem-solving skills. Assessment strategies may include monitoring charts or checklists, portfolios, rubrics, and student self-evaluations. Later, in Chapter 8, we will address these assessment strategies. The BSCS provides an excellent summary of the 5E Learning Cycle by indicating descriptors for the students as well as the teachers regarding consistency with the model (see Figures 5.2 and 5.3).

Figure 5.2   What the Student Does What the Student Does . . . Stage of the Instruction Model

That Is Consistent With the 5E Model

That Is Inconsistent With the 5E Model

Engage

Asks questions, such as, Why did this happen? What do I already know about this? Shows interest in the topic

Asks for the “right” answer Offers the “right” answer Insists on answers or explanations Seeks one solution

Explore

Thinks freely but within the limits of the activity Tests predictions and hypotheses Forms new predictions and hypotheses Tries alternatives and discusses them with others Records observations and ideas Suspends judgment

Lets others do the thinking and exploring (passive involvement) Works quietly with little or no interaction with others (only appropriate when exploring ideas or feelings) “Plays around” indiscriminately with no goal in mind Stops with one solution

Explain

Explains possible solutions or answers to others Listens critically to others’ explanations Questions one another’s explanations Listens to and tries to comprehend explanations the teacher offers Refers to previous activities Uses recorded observations in explanations

Proposes explanations from “thin air” with no relationship to previous experiences Brings up irrelevant experiences and examples Accepts explanations without justification Does not attend to other plausible explanations

Elaborate

Applies new labels, definitions, explanations, and skills in new but similar situations Uses previous information to ask questions, propose solutions, make decisions, and design experiments Draws reasonable conclusions from evidence Records observations and explanations Checks for understanding among peers Answers open-ended questions by using observations, evidence, and previously accepted explanations

“Plays around” with no goal in mind Ignores previous information or evidence Draws conclusions from “thin air” Uses only those labels that the teacher provided

DEVELOPING A PHILOSOPHY FOR INQUIRY

What the Student Does . . . Stage of the Instruction Model Evaluate

That Is Consistent With the 5E Model

That Is Inconsistent With the 5E Model

Demonstrates an understanding or knowledge of the concept or skill Evaluates his or her own progress and knowledge Asks related questions that would encourage future investigations

Draws conclusions without using evidence or previously accepted explanations Offers only yes or no answers and memorized definitions or explanations Fails to express satisfactory explanations in his or her own words Introduces new, irrelevant topics

Source: BSCS, 2011. BSCS Biology: A Human Approach (4th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt. Copyright © 2011 BSCS. All rights reserved. Used with permission.

Figure 5.3   What the Teacher Does What the Teacher Does Stage of the Instruction Model

That Is Consistent With the 5E Model

That Is Inconsistent With the 5E Model

Engage

Creates interest Generates curiosity Raises questions Elicits responses that uncover what the students know or think about the concept/topic

Explains concepts Provides definitions and answers States conclusions Provides closure Lectures

Explore

Encourages the students to work together without direct instruction from the teacher Observes and listens to the students as they interact Asks probing questions to redirect the students’ investigations when necessary Provides time for students to puzzle through problems Acts as a consultant for students

Provides answers Tells or explains how to work through the problem Provides closure Tells the students that they are wrong Gives information or facts that solve the problem Leads the students step-by-step to a solution

Explain

Encourages the students to explain concepts and definitions in their own words Asks for justification (evidence) and clarification from students Formally provides definitions, explanations, and new labels Uses students’ previous experiences as the basis for explaining concepts

Accepts explanations that have no justification Neglects to solicit the students’ explanations Introduces unrelated concepts or skills

(Continued)

87

88

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

(Continued) What the Teacher Does Stage of the Instruction Model

That Is Consistent With the 5E Model

That Is Inconsistent With the 5E Model

Elaborate

Expects the students to use formal labels, definitions, and explanations provided previously Encourages the students to apply or extend the concepts and skills in new situations Reminds the students of alternative explanations Refers the students to existing data and evidence and asks, What do you already know? Why do you think . . .? (strategies from Explore apply here also).

Provides definitive answers Tells the students that they are wrong Lectures Leads students step-by-step to a solution Explains how to work through the problem

Evaluate

Observes the students as they apply new concepts and skills Assesses students’ knowledge and/or skills Looks for evidence that the students have changed their thinking or behaviors Allows students to assess their own learning and group-process skills Asks open-ended questions, such as Why do you think . . . ? What evidence do you have? What do you know about x? How would you explain x?

Tests vocabulary words, terms, and isolated facts Introduces new ideas or concepts Creates ambiguity Promotes open-ended discussion unrelated to the concept or skill

Source: BSCS, 2011. BSCS Biology: A Human Approach (4th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt. Copyright © 2011 BSCS. All rights reserved. Used with permission.

Challenges to Creating a Constructivist Classroom An obvious question arises at this point: If constructivism has so many valid attributes to enhance student learning, why aren’t more teachers implementing constructivist strategies such as the 5E Learning Cycle in their classrooms? The answer to the question may begin with the term constructivist strategies. Constructivism should be viewed not as a set of teaching strategies but rather as a theory about how learning occurs. To become a constructivist teacher, one needs to focus on developing and sustaining a culture of constructivism within the classroom rather than implementing a set of loosely coupled strategies or practices. According to Windschitl (1999), Before teachers and administrators adopt such practices, they should understand that constructivism cannot make its appearance in the classroom as a set of

DEVELOPING A PHILOSOPHY FOR INQUIRY

isolated instructional methods grafted on to otherwise traditional teaching techniques. Rather, it is a culture—a set of beliefs, norms, and practices that constitute the fabric of school life. (p. 752) Developing a constructivist classroom culture is an arduous process. It means taking on new challenges and unfamiliar norms. This new role does not occur overnight. Becoming a constructivist-based teacher takes years of sustained perseverance and reflection. There are several challenges in transforming from the behaviorist-objectivist practices to a culture of constructivism. By examining these issues, we also question our own beliefs and values about good teaching and learning. Our journey to a constructivist classroom culture begins with taking a risk to challenge our classroom norms and teaching paradigm. 1. Familiarity With Pedagogy: Despite its popularity in the research and journals, coupled with an increasing number of teachers embracing constructivist principles, many high school science teachers are still not familiar with the concept of constructivism. Most science teachers are well equipped to provide hands-on and problem-solving activities to students, but a lack of a philosophical foundation in learning theory often prevails. Looking back to their preservice education courses, many teachers cite the lack of constructivist role models, especially in college-level science content courses. Too often, teachers face lecture-centered college instructors in the science content areas who teach in a traditional, didactic format where learning is seen as externally motivated rather than internally motivated. This supports the notion that “teachers teach as they have been taught.” 2. High-Stakes Assessments: Often the end-of-the-year, multiple-choice examination does not accurately assess achievement of all the goals of a constructivist teacher. With the increased emphasis on high-stakes, statewide standardized tests and the pressure teachers face to have their students perform at high levels of achievement, it is no wonder we hear the phrase “teaching to the test.” Constructivist educators constantly struggle with the balance between providing specific learning opportunities that best respond to the students’ prior experiences and present understandings and the reality that high-stakes standardized assessments are not going away. For constructivist teachers to align their instructional goals with assessment goals, they need the flexibility to have students demonstrate their competencies using forms of assessment other than paper-and-pencil, objective-type examinations. Project-based goals, critical thinking, cooperative learning, scientific reasoning, and problem-solving skills are not normally assessed on standardized tests. Thus, a shift toward the use of journals, portfolios, performance tasks with rubrics, and self-assessments becomes essential to balance more traditional assessments. 3. Curriculum and Standards: With the compliance with new state and national standards, the “one-size-fits-all” approach to curriculum does not always complement a constructivist culture. That does not mean that constructivist teachers do not have high standards for their students, but having standards, without flexibility, for differentiating individual instruction is not always compatible with a constructivist philosophy. Given the pressures of standardized instruction, many schools and teachers do not have the luxury of reducing the curricula load despite the call from some educational reform experts that less is more. Constructivist teachers face the

89

90

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

challenge of finding ways to teach fewer topics in greater depth while still meeting national or state standards. Fortunately, the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) have a more coherent vision than previous national science standard and benchmark projects. The NGSS focus on a fewer number of core ideas to allow for greater exploration and time for students to develop more meaningful understanding of the core ideas identified. The NGSS authors vow not to repeat the miscues from previous standards initiatives often characterized as being “a mile wide and an inch deep.” 4. Daily Schedule: As teachers provide the opportunity for students to design their own investigations and scientifically argue their findings, the daily schedule of 45-minute periods soon becomes constraining. For teachers to implement constructivist and inquiry-based strategies, block scheduling becomes a viable alternative for extended instructional time and opportunities for teachers across disciplines to integrate their curricula and develop team teaching partnerships. A block schedule may also give time for a team of teachers to redesign the curriculum and environment into theme-based and project-based units of study. Block scheduling can also provide common planning time for cross-content teachers to engage in discourse and reflection. 5. Textbooks: Textbooks are the greatest single source of information from printed materials used in high schools today. Look in any high school or college science classroom and you will probably find a single textbook being used. Because most textbooks are principally written for a national audience, publishers fear swaying too far from the “middle of the road” from what school districts expect in a textbook. With the exception of some authors such as the BSCS in biology and Paul Hewitt in physics, writers of high school science textbooks usually pre-teach vocabulary and introduce new concepts before students have an opportunity to explore the topic being studied. To move toward a constructivist culture, teachers and administrators should consider a multi-text approach, while using primary sources of relevant information. 6. Professional Development: Although many agree that professional development is a continuous, lifelong process, too often teachers experience professional development as fragmented, one-shot workshops or inservice days that center on the transmission of either content knowledge or classroom management skills presented from the speaker to the audience. In creating a constructivist and inquiry-based culture, according to the NRC (1996), “The conventional view of professional development for teachers needs to shift from technical training for specific skills to opportunities for intellectual professional growth” (p. 58). Such opportunities may include understanding the theoretical foundations for constructivism along with teaching strategies consisting of scaffolding, modeling, cooperative learning, and implementing performance assessments. The NRC (1996) goes on to say that “when teachers have the time and opportunity to describe their own views about learning and teaching, and to compare, contrast, and revise their views, they come to understand the nature of exemplary science teaching” (p. 67).

All Things Are Possible To cultivate a constructivist classroom culture, teachers need to develop a new vision about teaching and learning founded on research-based knowledge and then work to

DEVELOPING A PHILOSOPHY FOR INQUIRY

change their practices to achieve their vision. It is a dreadful experience to gaze out into a classroom full of students and have no vision for them. The very essence of teaching involves the creation of a vision for both you and your students. You can’t sound an inaudible trumpet. Students are more inclined to be drawn into learning when you, as their teacher, have a compelling instructional vision that makes it clear what you believe, what you stand for. Let it inspire and motivate your students to learn. How do you form this vision? Start by transforming a constructivist philosophy into practice. Visualize the classroom you desire. See it, feel it, believe in it. Make a mental blueprint of it and stamp it indelibly in your mind. Then formulate a mental picture of yourself in this classroom you created. Hold onto this picture tenaciously—never allow it to fade away. Great teachers create a vision, articulate the vision, and relentlessly drive to fulfill it. Keep your vision alive. Understand that to bring your vision to fruition you must also believe in yourself. By studying the tenets of constructivism, you acquire a moral compass that charts your journey in creating a learner-centered classroom. It’s that moral compass that guides your attitudes and behaviors and eventually your legacy as a teacher. Because visions are often achieved through reflection and collaboration, you need to realize that you probably cannot fulfill your vision effectively doing it alone. Like inquiry, transforming classroom norms and altering past practices requires a support system sustained over time. Find a colleague who embraces the same constructivist philosophy you do. Let your vision guide your achievements and shape your legacy. With self-confidence, commitment, and strength of character, all things are possible.

Case Study: Investigating Yeast In this case study, we will examine a 10th-grade biology class carrying out laboratory investigations involving yeast. The investigations in this case study lead students from teacher-initiated inquiries into student-initiated inquiries. In addition, the case study will further our understanding of how teachers can use a constructivist lesson format, the 5E Learning Cycle, to sequence instruction. This lesson correlates to A Framework for K−12 Science Education (NRC, 2012). Practices •• •• •• ••

Asking questions ·  Constructing explanations Developing and using models ·  Obtaining, evaluating, and Planning and carrying out investigations   communicating information Analyzing and interpreting data

Crosscutting Concepts •• Energy and matter Core Ideas •• LS1.C: Organization for Matter and Energy Flow in Organisms: Sustaining life requires substantial energy and matter inputs.

91

92

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

A Day at the Life Sciences Learning Center Sara McClane has been teaching general and college preparatory biology at Penport High School for 8 years. This past July, she participated in a 2-week summer professional development workshop sponsored by the Life Sciences Learning Center (LSLC), located at the University of Rochester in Rochester, New York. The goal of the workshop was to engage secondary school science teachers in inquiry and constructivist-based instruction. As a follow-up to that workshop, participating teachers are encouraged to bring their biology classes back to the LSLC for a full day of laboratory investigations. The LSLC is a unique hands-on science inquiry center serving middle, high school, and Advanced Placement students and teachers throughout central-western New York State. The LSLC is devoted entirely to precollege science education and providing hands-on, inquirybased, and laboratory-based investigations for students aligned to the state’s science learning standards. The LSLC also provides ongoing professional development, such as the workshop Ms. McClane attended, on constructivist-based life science instruction and biotechnology for secondary school teachers. For more information on the LSLC, visit http://lifesciences.envmed.rochester.edu/. Dr. Dina Markowitz, LSLC director, and Ms. Jana Penders, LSLC science educator, lead the lessons for students attending the center. Dina is a full professor and director of community outreach and education programs at the University of Rochester’s Department of Environmental Medicine. Jana is a former high school biology and chemistry teacher with research experience in microbiology and molecular biology. Ms. McClane brought her class to the LSLC for an investigation about yeasts. The day’s agenda for the investigation follows the 5E Learning Cycle format. The morning session includes the Engagement and Exploration stages. Following lunch, students return for the Explanation and Extension stages. The Evaluation stage will be completed by Ms. McClane the next day, when the class returns to school.

Engagement Stage: What Is Life? Sara and her students arrive by bus at the center at 8:30 a.m. They are greeted at the door by Dina and led upstairs to the laboratory. As the students put on their white lab coats and settle onto the stools at their assigned lab tables, the lesson opens with a 20-minute introduction by Jana. She initiates a discussion to assess the students’ prior understanding of the characteristics of living things. “What do you know about living things?” she asks. “Do you think this is living?” she asks as she points to a potted geranium near the window. Nora, a student in the class, tells Jana that living things carry out certain functions such as respiration and reproduction and also respond to external stimuli. “Since the geranium performs these functions,” Nora says, “it is a living organism.” Jana then shows the class a picture on the television monitor and continues. “How about these bacteria? Are they alive? How do you know?” Several students provide responses to indicate that bacteria, like the geranium, are living organisms. “Today we are going to act like scientists and detectives,” Jana says. “In a sense, they both do the same kind of work. They both make observations and draw inferences based on their observations.” She then holds up two identical-looking vials, one labeled “A” and the other labeled “B.” The vials contain equal amounts of tan-colored granules. “We have a mystery to solve,” Jana continues. “I have two vials, but I don’t know what is in them. I’ll need your help in finding out which of the granules in the vials are living organisms or nonliving.” Although the contents look nearly identical, vial A contains sand and vial B contains common baker’s yeast. The students are told that their task

DEVELOPING A PHILOSOPHY FOR INQUIRY

is to perform several laboratory techniques to determine which vial contains living organisms, be able to substantiate their evidence, and be able to provide a logical explanation. “You will be making both qualitative and quantitative observations,” Jana tells the students. “All your data should be accurately recorded in your science journals.” The students then pair up and move on to the Exploration stage, during which they begin to test the samples in the vials.

Exploration Stage During the next 2.5 hours, students design their investigations through prompting and guidance by Jana and Dina. The students are provided with the following materials and equipment to help them collect evidence and draw their conclusions: •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••

One vial of sand (labeled Sample A) One vial of baker’s yeast (labeled Sample B) One transfer pipette One small beaker containing 100 mL of warm water Two test tubes Two large zip-top bags One plastic teaspoon One permanent marker One ruler One 100 mL graduated cylinder Two packets of sugar and artificial sweeteners such as Equal, Sweet’N Low, or Sugar Twin (For information on artificial sweeteners, see www.equal.com, www .sweetnlow.com, or www.sugartwin.com.) Microscope slides Microscope cover slips One container of methylene blue One magnifying lens Paper towels One dissecting microscope One compound microscope (with oil immersion) Oil for immersion objective One incubator (set at 37 ºC)

“Because all good scientists and detectives start with observations,” Jana explains, “your first step is to use your senses, with the exception of taste, to observe the two samples. Although they are both safe, it’s recommended not to taste anything in a laboratory. You can observe the samples first with your naked eye and then by using a magnifying lens.” “Later,” Dina adds, “you can put the samples under the microscope and see if there is a difference in the samples. I suggest you start with the dissecting scope first and then use the compound microscope later. This way, you are always increasing in magnification.” The groups take the next 15 minutes to observe both vials and record observations in their science journals. In one group, Ann records that Sample B looks like fish food. Michael adds that Sample B looks like little capsules and smells like pizza dough. In another group, Michelle says, “Sample A doesn’t smell at all, and Sample B smells like yeast.” As the students are busy making their preliminary observations, Jana encourages students to use a twocolumn chart, similar to Figure 5.4, to record their observations and questions.

93

94

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

Figure 5.4  Two-Column Chart Observations

Questions

Once the groups have made their initial observations, they are ready to move on to Step 2. Jana begins the discussion by asking, “What can we do next to further our investigation?” A student suggests, “I think we should put each sample in some water and see if it dissolves, floats or sinks, or changes color.” With minimal guidance, each group now takes a small sample of the two unknown granules, places the samples in separate test tubes, and adds equal amounts of water. The students then observe the test tubes with a magnifying lens and note that Sample A rests at the bottom of the test tube and water, while Sample B forms a suspension. One group asks if they can prepare a wet mount of each sample, and Dina encourages the entire class to do so. The students observe the two samples under both low and high magnification. For the first time, the groups distinguish significant differences between the two samples microscopically, using both flat and depression slides. Students now include in their journals illustrations of granules for Sample A and cell-like objects for Sample B. As Dina continues to circulate among the groups, Jana places slides of Samples A and B, similar to what the students prepared, in the micro-viewer for the entire class to see. She uses the samples in the micro-viewer to compare and contrast the two samples and what the students have in their own microscopes. She suggests the students construct a Venn diagram in their notebooks, similar to Figure 5.5, to record the similarities and differences of Samples A and B. Figure 5.5  Venn Diagram Sample A

Sample B

DEVELOPING A PHILOSOPHY FOR INQUIRY

By the end of Step 2, most of the groups conclude that the samples are sand and yeast. Although many of the groups come to this conclusion, they are reminded that they need substantial data to prove their case and that their observations alone are not sufficient. They need more evidence! Jana now leads the class into a discussion about the staining techniques for Step 3 of the investigation. She tells the class that when they add methylene blue to each slide sample, the stain will indicate the presence of a cell membrane. “How, then, does the methylene help you to answer the question—is it alive?” she asks. Maria answers, “If the methylene blue stain is absorbed by the sample and the cell membrane is highlighted, we have additional proof that the sample is a living organism.” Jana now demonstrates how to add a drop of methylene blue to the slide. By placing a drop of stain at one end of the cover slip and by placing a piece of paper towel at the opposite end, the stain is drawn across the slide, through the sample, and into the paper towel. After students perform the technique on both slides, they view the samples under 100X magnification with oil immersion and soon discover that the sand, Sample A, does not absorb the indicator, whereas the yeast in Sample B does, highlighting the cell membrane. They conclude that Sample B consists of living cells. The students are now ready to begin Step 4. Dina begins this section of the investigation by asking, “Do you think the yeasts will grow in water alone?” “No,” one student suggests. “They need a food supply.” Dina then asks, “What food supply would you add to the water to help the yeast grow?” Some students suggest sugar; others suggest molasses or corn syrup. “All of you are right,” she says. “Now let’s design a way to determine the effect of sugar, or any another sweetener, on the samples.” During this part of the lesson, students are led through a teacher-initiated inquiry: Are yeasts living things, and do they need a food supply, like sugar, to grow? Students are given two zip-top plastic bags, and they place a teaspoon of yeast in each bag. A packet of sugar is added to one of the bags and labeled Figure 5.6  

95

96

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

“Sugar.” The second bag, to which no sugar is added, is labeled “Control.” One hundred milliliters of warm water is added to each bag. (Some students decide they want do the identical procedure with the sand sample just to compare.) The students squeeze all the air out of the bags, seal the tops, and roll the bags tightly. They now place their paired bags in an incubator set at 37 °C for 15 minutes. After 15 minutes, the students remove their bags from the incubator, measure any vertical rise in the bags, and return the bags to the incubator for another 15 minutes. After 30 minutes and again at 45 minutes, the students repeat the procedure, removing the bags from the incubator and measuring any change in height. The students continue to make observations and record their measurements in their science journals. One student makes the following notation in her journal: When I add sugar to the yeast and then place the bag in an incubator for 30 minutes, fermentation occurs and a gas, probably carbon dioxide, is produced. The bag inflates because the gas being produced is trapped within the bag. The yeast metabolizes the sugar and produces the gas (carbon dioxide) as a by-product. Bag Height (in centimeters) Time (in minutes)

Control

Sugar

15

0

1

30

0

2

45

0

5

Explanation Stage After the groups record their data from the yeast exploration, Jana brings the class together for a teacher-led discussion. A handout accompanies her comments. “Yeasts,” she explains, “are unicellular and belong to a group of microorganisms called the ascomycotes, or sac fungi. Their scientific name is Saccharomyces cerevisiae, meaning sugar loving. They are quite common and can be found naturally in the soil, in animals, including humans, on locker room floors, or just about anywhere there is moisture. Yeasts are especially noted for their ability to ferment carbohydrates, like sugar, and produce alcohol and carbon dioxide. This makes them important in the production of beer, wines, and bread. Yeasts usually reproduce by budding. That means that they reproduce asexually by producing small budlike outgrowths from the parent cell. Yeasts, however, can also reproduce sexually by producing spores called ascospores.” As the students take notes for their presentations, Jana shows yeast cells and their rigid cell walls on the monitor using the micro-viewer. She continues her presentation by explaining that yeasts, although living, are neither plants nor animals. “They belong to a separate phylum of fungus,” she adds. “And since mycology is study of fungi, today you have been working as mycologists!” She goes on to explain why yeasts are eukaryotic and describes both the fermentation process and the life cycle of yeasts. At the end of the Explanation stage, the class concludes that yeasts are indeed living organisms because they reproduce, use respiration, and repair and grow new cells. The class also concludes that Sample A is sand and Sample B is yeast. After a full morning of laboratory work, the class breaks for lunch.

DEVELOPING A PHILOSOPHY FOR INQUIRY

Elaboration Stage: What Do Yeast Live On? When the students return from lunch, they are ready to begin the Elaboration stage, in which they design their own student-initiated investigations. Jana tells the students to work in their groups to brainstorm questions to investigate. She suggests they refer to their two-column charts from the Engagement section and their data from the Exploration section to consider questions for further investigation. After a few minutes of brainstorming, Tim and Carrie decide to test regular sugar versus artificial sweeteners. They want to see if the amount of carbon dioxide produced during fermentation varies among natural and artificial sweeteners such as table sugar, Equal, Sweet’N Low, and Sugar Twin. They design their investigation so that equal amounts of each sugar or sweetener are placed in a plastic bag with yeast and warm water. Brian and Brandon want to find out how the amount of sugar affects the rate of fermentation and production of carbon dioxide. To do this, they propose adding varying amounts of sugar (10, 20, 30, and 40 grams) to the plastic bags. They also hope to determine how the amounts of food available affect the growth of the yeast cells. Donnell and Willis want to know if baker’s yeast metabolizes differently in varying types of sugars. To do this, they design an investigation to test sucrose, dextrose, glucose, and fructose. They inform Dina that their manipulating variable in the investigation is the type of sugar used and the responding variable is the amount of carbon dioxide produced as measured by the height of the bag after fermentation. Sandy and Sharon’s question is, “What is the optimal temperature for yeast growth?” They decide to investigate the ideal conditions for yeast growth and metabolism by growing yeasts at three different temperatures: 27 ºC, 37 ºC, and 47 ºC. When Carol and Ron placed the methylene blue stain in the slide from the morning investigation, they stirred three new questions, What would happen if we place a sugar solution under the slide of yeasts? Will gas bubbles form under the cover slip? Will the carbon dioxide bubbles look different from air bubbles? For each investigation, Jana and Dina encourage the students to identify the manipulated (or independent) variable, the responding (or dependent) variable, and the controlling (or constant) variables. Once the students design their experiments, they bring their plans to Dina or Jana for approval. After an hour of investigation, each group has 10 minutes to share with the class the question they investigated and communicate their findings. Before they know it, it is time for the class to board the bus and return to school. As the students make final notations in their journals and clean up their lab stations, they all agree that the day was worthwhile and rewarding. Many of the students comment that they felt they were actually doing real science!

Evaluation Stage In class the next day, Ms. McClane uses the data collected at the LSLC to introduce a genetics lesson on haploid and diploid life cycles. The purpose of the lesson is to extend the Elaboration stage and apply what the students learned at the LSLC to the district’s science standards and curriculum. At the completion of the Elaboration stage, Ms. McClane gives the students a unit test. The unit test includes multiple-choice questions, several short answer response questions, and a performance task to assess their progress in meeting the learning standards. Here is the task the students are given:

97

98

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

The task: A student wants to demonstrate how the rate at which a balloon inflates is proportional to the growth rate of the yeast cells. Use the materials listed below to complete the task: 1. Design an investigation to solve the problem. 2. Provide an appropriate table to record your data. 3. Carry out your investigation. 4. Fill in the data table. 5. Make a graph of your results. 6. Draw a conclusion from the data collected. Materials •• •• •• •• •• ••

100 mL of warm water Sugar cubes (or packets) A package of yeast One medium-sized plastic bottle or flask One balloon One metric measuring tape

A sample procedure may look like the following: 1. Place the three sugar cubes (or packets) in the plastic bottle and pour in 100 mL of warm tap water. 2. Swirl the bottle until the sugar has dissolved. 3. Pour the entire contents from the package of yeast into the bottle. 4. Squeeze all the air from the balloon and stretch the balloon over the top of the bottle. 5. Observe what happens. Every 5 minutes, use the measuring tape to measure the circumference of the balloon. Time (in minutes) 5 10 15 20 25 30

Circumference of balloon (in centimeters)

DEVELOPING A PHILOSOPHY FOR INQUIRY

In this case study, we see how teachers can use the 5E Learning Cycle to design investigations and units of study. We also see how a structured or guided inquiry can lead to a self-directed inquiry. Each of these types of inquiries will be explained more fully in the next chapter.

Questions for Reflection and Discussion 1. When having students design their own investigation, what precautions should the teacher take before allowing students to begin carrying out the procedures? 2. How can teachers anticipate the kinds of supplies, materials, and equipment that will be needed when students design their own inquiries? 3. If the teacher decides to use a rubric in this lesson, where would it be most appropriate? 4. What other examples of assessments can you suggest for the evaluation phase of the lesson? 5. Suggest how a teacher could add a follow-up argumentation section to the yeast investigation where students a) communicate their findings to their peers and b) justify and defend their claims and evidence? 6. Read the following statement from Kahil Gibran’s (1923) The Prophet and apply it to learning through a constructivist approach. “If (the teacher) is indeed wise he does not bid you to enter the house of his wisdom, but rather leads you to the threshold of your own mind.” 7. Read the following statement. State whether you either agree or disagree with it. Provide an example from your own classroom experience to support your position. “A misconception can spread throughout a classroom even before the teacher knows it’s out there.”

99

6 Four Levels of Science Inquiry Promoting Student Inquiries At this point, you have a good idea what scientific inquiry is and the kind of mind-set one needs to become an inquiry-based teacher. These issues advance your understanding of the meaning of inquiry—the “why do” aspect. Now, we turn our attention to the mechanics— the “how to” aspects—including the four different levels of science inquiry and how to design a science inquiry for each. In this chapter, we focus our attention on describing the investigations and inquiries that take place within and outside classroom walls. This chapter also distinguishes between typical science activities and laboratory experiences versus investigations that encourage students to pose questions, pursue their own answers, and communicate their findings and claims through argumentation. High school science teachers new to inquiry usually ask three “how to” questions: 1. What are the essential elements of a science inquiry? 2. How does a science inquiry investigation compare and contrast with the typical “cookbook” lab I do in class? 3. How do I get my students started in an inquiry-based activity if they have no prior experience in inquiry? Exploration of these three questions is essential for any teacher beginning to develop an inquiry-centered classroom. We will now answer all three questions. Every day at the high school level, teachers face prepubescent and “budding” adolescents whose bodies are on a hormone-induced emotional roller-coaster ride. High school students are often self-conscious about raising questions and reluctant to give answers, because by doing so they risk the appearance of standing out in the class. For this reason, high school science teachers who have students with little prior experience in inquiry should introduce their classes gradually to student-initiated investigations. The “Invitation

100

FOUR LEVELS OF SCIENCE INQUIRY

to Inquiry Grid” serves as a means to identify and categorize levels of inquiry-based instruction and guide more traditional-thinking students into scientific inquiry, reasoning, and argumentation.

Invitation to Inquiry Most laboratory experiments and activities that high school teachers do in science can be divided into three fundamental and distinct sections: 1. Posing the question 2. Planning the procedure 3. Communicating the results Depending on whether each of the three sections is either posed by the teacher or completed by the students, the activity can result in different learning experiences. Picture, if you will, a high school science teacher posing an investigable question to his or her students. Picture the teacher explaining the inquiry procedure, and picture the teacher actually performing the steps of the science inquiry. Also imagine the teacher posing questions that prompt students toward a conclusion and analysis of the inquiry. We will call this scenario a demonstrated inquiry. In a second situation, picture the teacher posing the question to the students and then providing a step-bystep procedure to steer a solution to the question. The students will then follow the procedure and collect and organize the results on their own. We will call this scenario a structured inquiry. In a third situation, picture the teacher proposing one or more questions to the students and then allowing the students to choose which question to investigate. The students next plan their procedures, design their own data tables, and then analyze and communicate their results. We will call this a guided or teacherinitiated inquiry. In our final situation, visualize the students posing their own questions, planning a procedure for answering the questions, designing their own data tables, and then analyzing and communicating their results. We will call this a self-directed or student-initiated inquiry. Figure 6.1 summarizes the four levels of instruction, with each successive level serving as a vehicle to further invite more ownership of the question and self-discovery.

Figure 6.1   Invitation to Inquiry Grid

Structured Inquiry

Guided or TeacherInitiated Inquiry

Self-Directed or Student-Initiated Inquiry

Teacher

Teacher

Teacher

Student

Planning the Procedure

Teacher

Teacher

Student

Student

Communicating the Results

Teacher

Student

Student

Student

Demonstrated Inquiry Posing the Question

101

102

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

Demonstrated Inquiries According to Figure 6.1, demonstrated inquiries focus the attention and the control of the situation around the teacher and the phenomenon being exhibited. Many science teachers are very familiar with doing demonstrated inquiries because they play an important role in teaching science-related topics. Some concepts and topics are best presented through this type of presentation. Why? For the teacher, doing demonstrated inquiries captures the attention of the audience, acts as a cognitive hook to “wow” the audience, and keeps students’ minds engaged. For the students, demonstrated inquiries are usually interesting, thought provoking, and enjoyable to observe, especially when the results are counterintuitive and provide an unanticipated result. At this point you may be asking, “Isn’t a demonstrated inquiry the same as a typical demonstration?” Well, the answer to that is both yes and no. They are similar in that they are both teacher centered and both are usually conducted when •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••

all students need to observe a particular phenomenon; the procedure is complicated for students to follow; the results of the phenomenon need to be guided or controlled; dangerous, toxic, or flammable materials are used; an explosion may (or will) result; safety is a concern; materials or equipment are limited; expensive chemicals, equipment, or other supplies are being used; and time is of the essence.

In primary school, we probably all participated in “show and tell.” When I was in second grade and it was my turn for show and tell, I brought my pet turtle to school and got up in front of the room and talked about my favorite animal. Traditional demonstrations are like show and tell, where the teacher is generally doing the showing and the telling—or in some cases, yelling. Demonstrated inquiries differ from conventional demonstrations in the way the teacher integrates questioning into the presentation. In a demonstrated inquiry, the teacher often will pose questions to solicit input in designing the demonstration. In this case, the student plays a more active role then just being a passive observer. Also in demonstrated inquiries, the conclusion is counterintuitive to a student’s normal experience and evokes “What if . . .” or “I wonder . . .” sequel questions. This acts as a means to extend the inquiry beyond the initial demonstration. Demonstrated inquiries that invite further questions and follow-up inquiries are often called discrepant events.

Discrepant Events Discrepant events are mind-engaging actions in which the students observe unexpected outcomes. Wondering why these unexpected things happen, contrary to what was anticipated, students experiencing the discrepancy have the motivation and interest to formulate additional questions to pursue. Discrepant events are especially useful for initiating a lesson or a unit of study and capturing students’ interest and promoting curiosity. The outcome usually produces a lot of “oohs” and “ahhs.” For some students a discrepant event can become an epiphany or a eureka moment of sudden unexplained discovery. When a high school boy combines the “ah” of wonderment and the “ha” of laughter, he gets an “ah-ha” moment and says, “I got it!”

FOUR LEVELS OF SCIENCE INQUIRY

Observing discrepant events can serve as a springboard to other science inquiries. Rather than introducing a new topic or concept and later providing the typical demonstration that proves the concept is correct, the discrepant event is used at the beginning of the lesson to capture the students’ imagination and sense of wonder. Discrepant events are successful when they initiate a wanting to know. Several steps are recommended in incorporating discrepant events into a lesson: 1. Demonstrate the event. Present students with an opportunity to observe results that appear contradictory. Provide students with an opportunity to confront the questions being raised. 2. Allow students to investigate the event. Students should be allowed to test the event or discrepancy by using science process skills such as observing, inferring, recording data, formulating hypotheses, and generalizing. Allow sufficient time to test the event and form hypotheses or questions to investigate. Encourage students to raise “What if . . .” and “I wonder . . .” questions about the discrepancy. Provide guidance to introduce inquiry strategies without giving away the answer or providing a full explanation. 3. Allow time for students to test their “What if . . .” and “I wonder . . .” questions and share the results of their inquiries. 4. Discuss the causes of the discrepancy to introduce the topic being studied (density, pressure, heat, etc.). During the discussion, refer back to the demonstration to personalize the concept being presented. 5. Apply the concept being studied to an application level beyond the classroom. Provide a culminating activity or laboratory experience that extends the learning rather than proves that what already was said is correct.

Structured Inquiries With traditional hands-on labs, the teacher or the textbook provides the question to be studied, usually at the top of the lab sheet. The students are told what materials to use and what procedures to follow to generate expected data and results. These labs are sometimes called “cookbook” science because, as with following a recipe in a cookbook, students are expected to follow prescribed directions or procedures in which the results from all the students are predictably the same. Many high school science teachers subscribe to this type of confirmation activity because it provides direction for the students and tells them what to do to complete the experiment. Teachers often stick to what’s in the textbook and rely on prescribed labs as a source of involving students in science because they feel that labs are easy to follow and provide students with focus and direction on how to carry out the activity. Although cookbook labs provide students with an opportunity to do hands-on, manipulative science, they usually confirm an expected, predicted outcome. For example, in a traditional activity from a 10th-grade chemistry class, the teacher poses the following question: “How can you test the hardness of water?” Then the teacher provides each group of students the materials to be used: •• Four samples of water (hard, tap, distilled, and bottled) labeled A, B, C, and D •• Four test tubes •• Four rubber stoppers

103

104

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

•• •• •• ••

A test-tube rack A graduated cylinder Liquid soap An eyedropper

Next, the teacher provides the procedures for the students to follow: 1. Use the graduated cylinder to measure 50 mL of water sample A. 2. Label the test tube “Sample A.” 3. Place the 50 mL of Sample A in a test tube. 4. Repeat the procedure for the other three water samples—B, C, and D. Place each sample in a separate test tube. Label each test tube according to the sample it contains. 5. Use the eyedropper to place two drops of liquid soap in each of the test tubes containing the water samples. 6. Observe and record your findings. 7. Now place a rubber stopper in each test tube and gently swirl each of the soap and water mixtures for 15 seconds. Again, observe and record your results. 8. Repeat the same procedure, but this time, vigorously shake each of the soap and water mixtures for 1 minute. Observe and record your results. 9. Repeat the same procedure for 3 minutes. Observe and record your results.

Figure 6.2  Data Table

Sample

Observations Before Shaking

Observations After 15 Second of Shaking

Observations After 1 Minute of Shaking

Observations After 3 Minutes of Shaking

A B C D

Although this is a relatively simple activity that most high school students can complete, you can see how teacher directed it is. The original question, the materials needed, and the procedures are all provided to the students. All that the students have to do is follow the steps of the procedure and record the results in the appropriate column in the data table. You can see that this activity can be thought of as a type of cookbook activity, and although it is hands-on, it is not inquiry based. Laboratory experiences can, however, become a means of inviting inquiry and can be used as a springboard into inquiry when, like discrepant events, they provide an opportunity for students to make observations or discoveries that are unexpected or unpredicted. This brings us to the structured inquiry. In some ways the structured inquiry may be similar to the kinds of labs normally found in high school science textbooks—but there

FOUR LEVELS OF SCIENCE INQUIRY

are differences. Whereas cookbook labs usually provide students with the question to be tested, a step-by-step procedure to follow, and a data table to fill in, with structured inquiry students are responsible for designing a chart or table to organize the data collected. This is an important distinction because if a student cannot design his or her own data table, you can assume he or she doesn’t fully understand the investigation or variables being examined. In addition, by having the student design his or her own data table, the task enhances more ownership of the investigation. Structured labs also have another distinctive feature. Whereas traditional labs usually have follow-up questions that focus on summarizing the results, structured inquiries encourage students to analyze their findings and draw implications for proposing subsequent inquiries where they raise new questions and design their own investigations— again increasing the ownership of the experience. Structured inquiries are especially appropriate when students need practice in following directions or have little prior experience in scientific inquiry. By first providing this type of inquiry and then moving on to more student-directed inquiries, the teacher can scaffold students toward more independence and ownership in conducting their own investigations.

Guided or Teacher-Initiated Inquiries The guided or teacher-initiated inquiry is the next level of independence for students. In this case, the teacher provides the question, but the student is responsible for designing the investigation as well as the data table and analyzing and communicating the results. It is very similar to problem solving, where a student is given a problem and asked to plan a solution. The previous activity for testing hard water can be easily modified from a structured inquiry to a guided inquiry. One step would be to have several prearranged questions for students to answer on their own. The teacher could pose several starter questions as prompts. The students then would be required to write their own procedures and carry out their own investigations. The following are several starter questions: •• Using soap as an indicator, how can you design a procedure to test the hardness of water? •• What materials will you need? •• What different samples of water will you test? •• What steps will you follow? •• What will you look for to determine the level of hardness in the water? •• How will you organize and record your results? Again, by first presenting the hard water as an initial exploration in the form of a demonstrated or structured inquiry, the teacher can lead students in choosing other questions to investigate. Say, for example, the teacher provides an opening exploration by testing one sample of water for hardness. From this initial experience, students would be given an opportunity to develop follow-up questions to investigate on their own. In this way, students are being scaffolded from a demonstrated or structured inquiry to a guided inquiry. Questions may include the following: •• How sanitary is the water from the school drinking fountain? In the school’s locker room showers? •• Do different brands of bottled water yield different test results? •• What result would we get if we tried the water from our own homes? Or from swimming pool water? Or water in a local pond, stream, or river?

105

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

•• What results would we get if we tested the city water versus well water? •• What’s the difference between hard and soft water? What causes water to be “hard”? How can you make hard water “soft”? •• Do some laundry detergents work best in hard water? Or soft water? In these examples, you can see how students progress from a structured inquiry to a guided inquiry. This is usually the case since most students first need a basic experience to move on to a higher level of inquiry. As you scaffold students to more independent levels of inquiry, consider how you can first provide an introductory exploration that activates and models the inquiry process, thereby moving students along the continuum toward self-directed learning.

Self-Directed or StudentInitiated Inquiries The highest level of inquiry occurs when students initiate their own questions. According to the Invitation to Inquiry Grid, in self-directed or student-initiated inquiries (sometimes called open inquiry or full inquiry) students raise their own questions, design their own procedures, and organize and analyze their own results. During self-directed inquiry, the overall responsibility for the completion of the task shifts from the teacher to the student. We now understand how the levels of self-directed ownership and involvement on the part of the teachers and the students vary significantly for each learning situation described. During a demonstrated inquiry, the teacher plays an active role while the students play a more observant role. In contrast, during the self-directed inquiry, the students have full ownership of the questions while the teacher plays a facilitating role. That doesn’t mean that the teacher passively stands aside during a student-initiated investigation. The teacher still has the responsibility of posing ancillary questions to foster critical thinking during the investigation and directing students to online and consult print Figure 6.3  Student/Teacher Ownership

TEACHER PARTICIPATION (Low/Passive) STUDENT PARTICIPATION

106

(High/Active)

(Low/Passive)

Demonstrated Inquiries

Structured Inquiries

Guided Inquiries (High/Active) Self-Directed Inquiries

FOUR LEVELS OF SCIENCE INQUIRY

resources to help clarify the findings of the inquiry. The teacher plays an even greater role when the inquiry’s results are communicated through an argument-based discussion. Here the teacher plays an important role in facilitating the discussion and keeping the students on-task as they justify and defend their claims to their peers. Figure 6.3 summarizes the ownership level of each learning situation.

Guiding Students Into Inquiry Most students, and teachers for that matter, are not ready to begin with full studentgenerated inquiries at the start of the school year. During the first few weeks of school, teachers need to set expectations for classroom management, discipline, classroom routines, grading procedures, and so on. Establishing and maintaining a healthy and safe classroom is a prerequisite for an inquiry lesson. Without rules, inquiry becomes unruly and unmanageable. It is normal for teachers to wait until they grow accustomed to their classes before starting a full inquiry-based unit. This is especially true for teachers who have students coming to them without prior experience in inquiry learning. So the recommendation to novice teachers is to get your classroom management house in order before moving on to inquiry-based instruction. An active classroom needs a teacher with honed management skills. This topic will be addressed in more detail in Chapter 8. The Invitation to Inquiry Grid (Figure 6.1) can also serve as a way to chart a yearlong instructional plan so that students are gradually but continuously encouraged to take on more responsibility for their learning. During the early months of the school year or when students are unfamiliar with inquiry learning, the teacher may choose to begin with demonstrated inquiries, focusing on having students observe and experience several mindengaging discrepant events. During the next several months, the teacher can then move into the structured-inquiry stage, concentrating on providing sound hands-on inquiries that provide the opportunity for extended investigations. Before the end of the first semester, a reasonable expectation would be to have students involved in one or more guided inquiries, with the goal of evolving the students’ expertise into several full student-initiated inquiries at the beginning of the second semester. In the final analysis, each teacher has to plot his or her own course based on the experience and capability of the class. In this example, the Invitation to Inquiry Grid serves as a monitoring tool for teachers in designing their yearlong instructional plans. As the school year proceeds, teachers can ask, “Am I moving my students from teacher-dependent to more independent experiences, and am I providing opportunities for student-initiated inquiries as the year progresses?” By now, you should have a good grasp of the difference between doing a non-inquiry, hands-on lab and an inquiry-based lab. You have read that although most inquiry investigations involve using hands-on and minds-on means of learning, not all hands-on labs are inquiry based. Although it may be hands-on, when a lab presented by the teacher or the textbook provides the question to be investigated, directs what materials to use, tells what variable to test, lists the steps to follow to find the answer to the question, and shows how to organize the data collected, it’s indubitably not inquiry. That’s not to say that a traditional type of lab doesn’t have a time or place in the high school science program; it just says, Don’t call it inquiry. To further explain the differences among a demonstrated, a structured, a guided, and a self-directed inquiry, a lesson on soil permeability will be presented in four different approaches. Using the same science concept, we can then see how each level differs from the others.

107

108

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

Let’s suppose, in a high school earth science class, we wanted to find out the drainage rates of different types of soil. As a demonstrated inquiry, the teacher probably would be standing in front of the class behind a demonstration table, posing the question, “How does the type of the soil determine the drainage of water through the soil?” The teacher would then show and describe the supplies and materials to be used in the lesson. Following the outlined steps of the procedure, the teacher would set up the materials as follows. The teacher inserts a piece of filter paper into a large funnel that is held above a collecting beaker. The teacher then measures a given amount, approximately 200 grams, of a soil sample and places the soil sample into the funnel. Then the teacher uses a graduated cylinder to measure 100 mL of water and pours the water over the soil sample in the funnel. As the water seeps through the soil sample, some of the liquid will drain through the bottom of the funnel and drip into the collecting beaker. At the end of 5 minutes, the teacher measures the amount of water in the collecting beaker and has the students record the results in their science journals. At the conclusion of the demonstrated inquiry, the teacher assists the students in summarizing the data, plotting the results on a bar graph, then describing the relationship between the soil and the amount of water that drained through the sample. Because this demonstration does not represent a discrepant event, the teacher poses extension questions to the class. For example, the teacher asks the students, “What kinds of results would you expect if you tested samples of clay, sand, loam, peat moss, and topsoil?” These extension questions serve as a springboard to having students conduct their own inquiries the next day. In small groups of three to five students, each group tests one type of soil and shares its results with the rest of the class in an argument-based discussion. The demonstrated inquiry takes a class period of 30 to 45 minutes to complete, while the follow-up inquiry and the argumentation portion of the discussion may take one class period apiece. For a structured inquiry lesson, the teacher has the students at lab tables in small groups of three or four. A lab sheet is distributed to each of the groups as the teacher provides an overview of the investigation. The teacher reads the directions and answers any questions the students may have about the procedure. The question to be studied is provided to the students on the laboratory worksheet, along with a list of the supplies and materials needed, as well as the steps to follow. A structured inquiry lab may look like the following:

Question: How does the type of soil affect the drainage rate of water? Materials: •• Four samples of soil (e.g., topsoil, clay, sand, loam, peat moss) •• Ring stand and ring clamp •• 250-mL beakers •• Large funnel •• Filter paper or coffee filters •• Graduated cylinder •• Water •• Triple-beam or electronic balance

FOUR LEVELS OF SCIENCE INQUIRY

Procedure:   1. Set up the ring stand as shown.   2. Place a large funnel in the ring clamp.   3. Fold a piece of filter paper to fit within the funnel.   4. Place a collecting beaker under the funnel.   5. Measure 200 grams of topsoil.   6. Place the 200-gram sample of topsoil in the funnel.   7. Measure 100 mL of water.   8. Pour the 100 mL of water into the funnel over the topsoil sample.   9. Wait 5 minutes. 10. Measure the amount of water in the collecting beaker. Record your results in your science journal. 11. Choose one other soil type. Repeat the procedure for the soil type you chose and be prepared to argue with supporting evidence how the two types of soil differed in their drainage rates. 12. Based on the findings from all the groups for all the samples tested in the class, formulate an explanation as to the relationship between the type of soil and its drainage rate.

As the students work on the lab, the teacher circulates among the groups and provides assistance in answering their questions and listening for any misconceptions that may emerge. In completing this activity, the students experience a hands-on structured inquiry with many opportunities to observe, make mathematical measurements, manipulate materials, record data, and draw conclusions. As with the time requirement for the demonstrated inquiry, this activity takes a class period of 30 to 45 minutes to complete, while the follow-up inquiry and the argumentation portion of the discussion may take one class period apiece. For a guided, teacher-initiated inquiry, the teacher poses the question, “How does the type of soil affect the drainage rate?” and challenges students to formulate a procedure to answer the question. Notice in this question, the teacher does not mention the drainage of water—that component is left for the student to figure out. With many different soil samples available (some with large particles and others with smaller particles), the students are encouraged to first brainstorm the question in small groups and then decide on an investigation to perform. Each group member discusses the assumptions he or she brings to the lab about soil size and drainage rates. Together, the group writes a hypothesis and a plan for testing their prediction. Once the plan is completed and approved by the teacher, the students are free to get whatever materials they need to carry out their strategy and collect evidence to test their hypothesis. For this lab, the teacher may choose to substitute a 2-liter plastic bottle for more expensive equipment and glassware. If the students have difficulty designing an investigation on their own, the teacher may decide to first do a demonstrated inquiry using one type of soil sample as a model

109

110

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

Figure 6.4  

and then have students do a follow-up guided inquiry by choosing another soil sample to test. This gets us back to the need for scaffolding. Again, the direction the lesson takes depends on the prior experience and needs of the students. During the lab, the teacher circulates from group to group and listens in on their discussions. Again, the teacher listens to comments made by the students that would reveal any misconceptions about drainage rates and provides additional prompts to test any naive conceptions that arise. The teacher poses further questions for the students to consider and has additional inquiries available for groups who complete their investigation early. In line with the time requirement for the previous examples, students prepare to argue with supporting evidence how the two types of soil differed in their drainage rates and, based on the findings from all the groups for all the samples tested in the class, formulate an explanation as to the relationship between the type of soil and its drainage rate. As an estimate, this lab takes one or two class periods to complete, with the argumentation portion of the discussion taking one additional class period. For a self-directed, student-initiated inquiry, the teacher assesses prior knowledge and uncovers misconceptions by asking students to share what they already know about soil and drainage rates. The teacher records their experiences by listing them on the board. Next, the teacher allows time for self-directed exploration in which students observe online videos about different soils and their drainage patterns. During this exploration stage, the teacher encourages students to raise their own personal questions and inquiries about drainage rates and suggests that they phrase their inquiries as “What if,” “I think,” or “I wonder” statements. Depending on the preferences of the class, the

FOUR LEVELS OF SCIENCE INQUIRY

teacher asks the groups to share their questions while making a list of their ideas on the board. Following this exercise, the teacher would identify each question as •• one that is ready to be answered through an investigation, •• one that needs to be revised and/or rewritten before it can be investigated, or •• one that requires an outside “expert” or resource to answer. It is important for students to classify their questions into these categories to further understand the direction their questions will take them. For example, questions starting with “why” usually require an explanation to answer. These “why” questions often need to be revised into “what” or “what if . . .” questions before they can be investigated. Sufficient materials and supplies are available at a supply center for groups to use as needed. The students brainstorm ways to solve their questions and then set about carrying out their plans. The teacher rotates from group to group, asking more questions and clarifying students’ ideas and prior conceptions about the soil samples. The teacher encourages the groups to write down other questions that come up during the course of their investigations. At the end of the lesson, the teacher brings all the groups together so they can share their observations and conclusions. Each group is given time to get up in front of the class and state the question they investigated and the results they discovered, as well as apply the phenomenon studied to situations outside the classroom. Each group states a claim from the findings and supports the claim with evidence. Explanations are then formulated and communicated as to the concept being studied. Each of the four approaches has definite advantages, and of course each teacher could plan and implement the lesson differently from the way expressed here. Demonstrated inquiries reduce the time requirement and ensure that each student has the same opportunity to observe the same concept being studied in the same way. The structured inquiry lab format serves two purposes: It allows the teacher to have all the students arrive at the same conclusion together, and it provides a means to model a procedure for follow-up guided inquiries. Both teacher-initiated and student-initiated inquiries are excellent instructional strategies for getting students to consider ways to plan and solve problems. These inquiries provide a means for students to empower themselves by directing the course of their own work. The four stages are summarized in Figure 6.5.

Figure 6.5   Expanded Invitation to Inquiry Grid

Structured Inquiry

Guided or TeacherInitiated Inquiry

Self-Directed or Student-Initiated Inquiry

Teacher

Teacher

Teacher

Student

Planning the Procedure

Teacher

Teacher

Student

Student

Formulating the Results

Teacher

Student

Student

Student

Demonstrated Inquiry

Posing the Question

(Continued)

111

112

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

(Continued)

Structured Inquiry

Guided or TeacherInitiated Inquiry

Self-Directed or Student-Initiated Inquiry

Predetermined

Predetermined

Posed by teacher

Posed by student

The Plan or Procedure

Predetermined

Predetermined

Designed by student

Designed by student

The Outcome

Predetermined

Expected

Guided

Open-ended

The Time

5–30 min.

30–60 min.

45–60+ min.

60–120+ min.

The Role of the Teacher

Motivator

Coach

Facilitator

Mentor

The Role of the Student

Observer

Direction follower

Problem solver

Researcher

The Materials

Provided

Provided

Suggested

Suggested

The Content

Focused

Focused

Needs some focusing

Requires focusing

Demonstrated Inquiry

The Question

In this chapter, we looked at ways to categorize science experiences ranging from demonstrated to student-initiated inquiries. As you design your yearlong plans, the Inquiry Grid can serve as a way to move students toward more self-directed experiences. In your journey to becoming an inquiry-based high school science teacher, you consciously plan a gradual shift from left to right in the Inquiry Grid, ensuring that your students develop the requisite skills for becoming scientifically literate citizens.

Differentiated Science Inquiry As you just read, the Invitation to Inquiry grid offers a means of distinguishing the various approaches (or levels) to science inquiry. But it also serves an additional role—as a blueprint for differentiating learning strategies in planning instruction. While the grid implies a “whole-class” approach to inquiry (meaning all the students in the class are given the same inquiry approach for the same lesson), teachers, once they become proficient in inquirybased teaching, can move on to the next phase of inquiry teaching by differentiating the level of science inquiry within the same lesson. In Differentiated Science Inquiry (Llewellyn, 2011), teachers who have become experienced and savvy with inquiry are encouraged to take the next step in their journey by constructing a science investigation with multiple approaches built into the lesson. When teachers do that, each student can select an approach that is developmentally appropriate for his or her preferred learning style—whether it’s visual, auditory, tactile, or kinesthetic. Whereas some students may prefer doing a structured inquiry, others may prefer doing a guided or a self-directed inquiry. Picture Ms. Nolan, an 11th-grade physics teacher with 25 students in her third period physical science class. You may recall the discussion you read in Chapter 5 that she had with two of her students, Christy and Kara. Let’s return to that lesson. Ms. Nolan recognizes that her students have different needs when it comes to completing a science lab. About half of the class prefers to do a lab that spells out exactly what is expected of them. These students like the lab procedures presented in an easy-to-follow, sequential format. About a quarter of the students prefer being given a problem to solve or a question to answer and finding the solution on their own. And the remaining quarter of the class

FOUR LEVELS OF SCIENCE INQUIRY

prefers to take ownership of their own question and design a means to test their own perceptions. In an attempt to satisfy all the various needs and preferences, Ms. Nolan occasionally modifies an investigation based on three approaches to inquiry: structured, guided, and self-directed. After a brief introduction, she allows the students to choose the approach that best fits their individual needs and need for structure (see Figure 6.6). A student then pairs with one or two other students who have chosen the same approach. They form a lab team and complete the inquiry as a group. Through this approach, Ms. Nolan acknowledges that “one size does not fit all” and that choice is a strong intrinsic motivator for secondary school students as they complete assignments. Regardless of the approach chosen, at the end of the inquiry, all students are responsible for learning the same concepts. In this case, the approaches the students choose to get to the understanding vary, but the knowledge gained is the same for all groups. Figure 6.6  

Introduction

Structured Inquiry

Guided Inquiry

Self-Directed Inquiry

Ms. Nolan uses the differentiated-inquiry method in several ways based on the topic and the nature of the investigation. At times, she presents an introduction to a topic and allows students to choose one of several structured inquiries to complete (see Figure 6.7). This tactic works best when there are several variables that students believe can affect the outcome of an investigation. For example, in a unit of motion energy, students are studying the factors that affect the swing of a pendulum. In this situation, Ms. Nolan allows students to choose which variable they want to test. Here students can choose to test the mass of the object at the end of the pendulum, the distance the object is pulled back and released, or the length of the string. Once all the investigations are completed, the groups present their findings to the rest of the class and discuss the test procedures and results. Figure 6.7  

Introduction

Structured Inquiry #1

Structured Inquiry #2

Structured Inquiry #3

113

114

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

At other times, she may introduce a topic by having all students first complete a structured inquiry. This structured inquiry serves as a model for a laboratory technique being introduced or focuses on specific laboratory procedures new to the students. Next, she will provide three versions of a follow-up guided inquiry, where again the students choose which guided inquiry they want to complete (see Figure 6.8). After all the guided inquiries are finished, students share their results and provide explanations to reinforce the concept being studied. With Differentiated Science Inquiry, regardless of the level the student chooses, in the end, all students arrive at the same common understanding of the concept or standard being studied.

Figure 6.8  

Structured Inquiry

Guided Inquiry #1

Guided Inquiry #2

Guided Inquiry #3

In the following case studies, we will read how two high school science teachers use extended and differentiated inquires to motivate students and to scaffold them toward more self-directed learning and opportunities for argumentation.

Case Study 1: Bottle Ecosystems According to McComas (2005), Scientists rarely conduct investigations in which the solution is assured within an hour or so. In contract, students typically work in the laboratory with the expectation that an answer will be achieved quickly by simply following the directions. To counter this view, students should have opportunities to engage in long-term investigations and explore phenomena that simply cannot be observed in one or two class periods. (p. 25) Not all scientific inquiries are designed to be completed in one or two classroom periods. Inquiry investigations can be protracted and sustained over several months or even the entire school year. Knowing that biology students have an interest in plant and animal interactions, an experienced biology and environmental science teacher, Mr. Jay Costanza, uses and recycles 2-liter plastic soda bottles to engage his 10th- and 11th-grade biology students in designing environments for observing ecological interactions and succession over an extended time.

FOUR LEVELS OF SCIENCE INQUIRY

Mr. Costanza is a veteran teacher of 15 years and has been teaching through inquirybased strategies his entire career. With a background in project-based instruction, Mr. Costanza teaches biology, environmental science, and advanced placement biology at a midsized urban high school. He also involves his students in an Adopt-a-Stream program; they take samples from a nearby creek to test and monitor water quality and assess the overall health of the creek over time. Because biological inquiries, like succession, are inherently longer, Mr. Costanza designs the course curriculum from the macroscopic level (ecology) to the microscopic level (cell biology and genetics), with students beginning their extended inquiry into ecology during the first week of school. By beginning the biological and ecological inquiry in September, Mr. Costanza feels he establishes a tone for the remainder of the year that introduces students to the themes of interdependency and succession. Using the book Bottle Biology (Wisconsin Fast Plants Program, 2003) and the Web site www.bottlebiology.org, Mr. Costanza introduces students to the idea of inquiry at the start of the school year. He initiates this low-cost inquiry with two essential starter questions: (a) What are the life processes that are essential to all living organisms? (b) What are the conditions to sustain life? He does this by first providing a scenario where students design a biosphere on the surface of Mars, then later has students apply their research in designing an actual plastic-bottle ecosystem. The Bottle Ecosystem unit incorporates the following standards which align with A Framework for K−12 Science Education (NRC, 2012): Practices •• •• •• ••

Asking questions Planning and carrying out investigations Analyzing and interpreting data Constructing explanations

Crosscutting Concepts •• Systems and system models •• Matter and energy: Flows, cycles, and conservation Core Ideas •• LS2.A—Interdependent relationships in ecosystems •• LS2.B—Cycles of matter and energy transfer through ecosystems To start the extended inquiry, Mr. Costanza arouses students’ curiosity by first posting a large picture of the surface of Mars in the front of the room. As students enter the classroom on Day 1 of the inquiry, a video from the Discovery Channel is showing mechanical robots collecting rock samples from the surface of the Red Planet. As the students settle into their seats, Mr. Costanza begins. “What is life?” he asks. “What is a living thing?” Holding a rock in one outstretched hand and a piece of coral in the other, he asks, “Is this rock alive? Is this piece of coral alive?” After a brief discussion on the meaning of life, Mr. Costanza continues. “If you were to live on Mars for an extended amount of time, what would you need to survive? Can

115

116

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

you think of a time in your life when you were far away from home and felt extremely cold, thirsty, lonely, or frightened? What did that feel like? Now imagine being an astronaut on the surface of Mars where there is no air, food, water, warmth, plants, or other animals. How could you survive? What would you need to stay alive?” As Mr. Costanza walks about the room, he continues, “We have been given a special assignment by NASA. Your task is to design a biosphere that would sustain humans living on the surface of Mars for 18 months. I will now pass out the letter from NASA and you can read it quietly to yourself.” The letter reads as follows: Date: September 10, 2012 To: The Biology Students in Room 246 From: Dr. Sharon Austin, Director of Destination Mars Congratulations! Your class has been selected to participate in a top-secret program for NASA named Destination Mars. Because our government is considering the possibility of establishing a colony on Mars, your mission is to design a biosphere that will allow a group of 10 astronauts to survive on the planet Mars for 18 months. Your first assignment for Destination Mars will be to gather members of a team and form a “think tank.” The objective of the think tank is to decide what is needed to sustain life on the planet Mars, ultimately making this program a success. You can submit your designs as a poster or electronically as a PowerPoint presentation. During the project, you will be briefed by your biology teacher, Mr. Costanza, as to the specifics of the mission. Good luck, and remember, the success of this program depends upon you! Mr. Costanza now makes online resources and books available to students regarding conditions on Mars. Several students use the following NASA Web site for obtaining information about Mars and the rover Curiosity: http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/index.cfm The students are given several days to do their research. Although some time is spent in the classroom, most of the students’ research is done in the school library, online, or at home as homework. In class, teacher-led discussions focus on the two initial questions: (a) What are the life processes that are essential to all living organisms? (b) What are the conditions necessary to sustain life? After several days of researching information, the groups are ready to share their designs. One at a time, the groups come to the front of the class and present their projects. As they compare and contrast the designs, students discuss the similarities and differences among the designs. Mr. Costanza now informs the students that they will use the research they discovered about the needs of living organisms from the Mars project to build an actual living model of an ecosystem from 2-liter plastic bottles. He tells the students that not only will they identify what living things need; they’ll have to prove it! “Your next responsibility as a research ecologist,” Mr. Costanza continues, “is to use one or more 2-liter plastic bottles to design a living chamber that will keep a fish or other animal alive for 2 months. You can use sand; gravel; small rocks; soil; snails; aquatic plants like duckweed (Lemna), fanwort (Cabomba), or hortwort (Ceratophyllum); and pond water to build your mini-ecosystem.”

FOUR LEVELS OF SCIENCE INQUIRY

Actually, Mr. Costanza knows that most containers will last longer than 2 months. In fact, some may last as long as 5−6 months, but that is all part of the inquiry, to keep students engaged and involved. “You mean we have to design a container using plastic bottles to keep something alive for 2 months?” Eugene asks. “That’s impossible!” Karen adds. “Come on, how can we do that?” “Well,” Mr. Costanza says, “start first with a fish, say a guppy, and then later consider adding other organisms like a worm or a cricket.” Another student asks, “What do guppies eat? What are we supposed to feed them? How do I find out what a cricket eats?” “Well,” Mr. Costanza responds, “that’s all part of being a scientist. We have to do research just like in the Mars project.” Students begin by brainstorming various designs to construct their bottle ecosystems. One group decides to place a hole in the top of the bottle to monitor temperature and dissolved oxygen, while another group centers on how to measure the pH of the water. During the class’s brainstorming and design sessions, Mr. Costanza provides past copies of Carolina Tips (a product magazine from the science supply company Carolina Biological Supply) and suggests the Wisconsin Fast Plants Web site (www.fastplants.org) as resources. Students also use other online resources to research their designs. For the remainder of the period and into Day 2, the teacher conveys additional parameters of the investigation. He tells the students they can experiment with their bottle designs for several weeks to determine what works and what doesn’t work. Then, after 3 weeks, the containers will be sealed, with nothing new to be added. “That’s when the 2-month clock starts ticking,” he informs the class. Mr. Costanza then provides aquarium books, Internet resources, scientific magazines and journals, biology textbooks, and other sources for the groups to research the needs of living things. Students are instructed to place their research notes and designs in their science journals, including a diagram and explanation of “how my bottle ecosystem works.” The bottle designs vary. Some students choose conventional systems, while others choose to connect two bottles, with one ecosystem supporting another. Each day, the students continue to enter their observations and drawings in their journals. As groups brainstorm their ideas, several students record what a fish or a guppy needs to survive. One student’s entry indicates, “I found out that fish feed on elodea. That may significantly improve its chances for survival.” Students consider other fish they are familiar with, such as goldfish or betta fish. After several days, students share their bottle designs by making posters from their journal entries. Their prototypes enable them to test their ideas and share their designs in front of the class. Mr. Costanza tells students that by sharing their models and ideas, they should discuss limiting factors such as space, temperature, breeding concerns, and even the interactions among the organisms in the ecosystem. Some groups choose plants like grasses, while one selects green beans as their food supply. During the discussion, one group mentions that it plans to place tap water in the bottle; another group plans to get pond water. Other discussions center on the type of soil to use—dirt versus clay or sand. Others share research discoveries regarding the feeding habits of guppies, crickets, and earthworms. The teacher concludes the period by reiterating that the project is an inquiry into a design of trial and error. Later in the week, the teacher introduces the class, by means of a formal presentation, to the carbon dioxide/oxygen cycle and nitrogen cycle. During the presentation, concepts including biosphere, abiotic and biotic factors, ecosystem, community, habitat, producer,

117

118

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

and consumer are discussed. Mr. Costanza asks the following questions: “Why is your ecosystem considered a closed system, why did we use a closed system for this activity, and why is light required in the bottle ecosystem?” Now, the inquiry turns its attention toward discussing how students would monitor pH, temperature, and dissolved oxygen rates. Some students suggest using probes and spreadsheets to collect and record data over the 2 months. By this time, students are eager to begin construction of their bottle ecosystems. At the start of Day 6, students use their scale drawings from their journals to cut plastic bottles and assemble their ecosystem structures, as shown in Figure 6.9.

Figure 6.9  

Upon completion, the students add the fish, plants, and other organisms to the containers, creating ecosystems. For 2 weeks, the students observe the bottle environment daily, monitor the conditions, and record appropriate data. They update spreadsheets and record notes in their journals. The students now have 2 weeks to observe their structure and make modifications. During this time, students assess, through trial and error, the capacity of their structure to sustain life over an extended period of time. During this 2-week experimentation period, some students discover that food supplies are not sufficient for all the organisms and thus make revisions to their model. Others conclude that crickets have difficulty existing in a confined chamber without the constant addition of an outside food supply. All these conclusions eventually result in revisions in the structure of the experimental chamber or changes in the choice of organism to be placed in the structure. After 2 weeks, the ecosystem containers are closed.

FOUR LEVELS OF SCIENCE INQUIRY

At the completion of the Bottle Ecosystem investigation, all students are expected to be able to do the following: •• Explain why their structure is considered a closed ecosystem •• Identify biotic and abiotic factors in their ecosystems •• Identify the following organisms in their ecosystem: producer, primary consumer, and decomposer •• Explain how carbon, oxygen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water are cycled through their respective ecosystems •• Create a diagram of a food chain or energy pyramid and a food web from their ecosystem

Case Study 2: The Finger Lakes Regional Stream Monitoring Network As teachers continue their journey into inquiry-based teaching and learning, they realize that the inquiry experience can extend beyond the classroom walls. This is especially true for teachers of biology, environmental science, and earth science. These teachers broaden their view of the laboratory by using zoos, museums, local parks, wooded areas, streams, wetlands, and the greater school community as a workshop for investigating the natural world. Stream and wetland inquiries offer many possibilities for interdisciplinary projects where high school students investigate environmental, chemical, and physical aspects of an eco-community. Furthermore, such inquiries give students opportunities to integrate earth science into the field investigations by studying how land use of the immediate area affects the water quality of the environment. Earth science can be incorporated into an ecological study by using topographic maps of the community in observing how the surrounding terrain can affect water-quality conditions of the stream or wetland. With inquiries like these, students (a) choose a relevant question to investigate; (b) collect appropriate data; (c) organize their findings on graphs and tables; (d) communicate their conclusions, claims, and supportive evidence; and (e) propose explanations about the relationship of the parameters being studied to the overall health of the stream or wetland. In addition, students use technology such as software interface with probes and sensors to discover cyclical patterns and relationships among the parameters. One such program that adds relevance to students’ learning is the Finger Lakes Regional Stream Monitoring Network. We will read how the program’s experiences lead to a high level of understanding and appreciation for the local environment and aquatic systems. In becoming aware of the environmental impact of chemicals on our water system, students further develop the eco-awareness and eco-consciousness of a scientifically literate citizen. The activities in the Finger Lakes Regional Stream Monitoring Network (FLRSMN) align with A Framework for K–12 Science Education (NRC, 2012) for the standards: Practices •• Asking questions •• Planning and carrying out investigations

•• Analyzing and interpreting data •• Constructing explanations

Crosscutting Concepts •• Systems and system models •• Matter and energy: flows, cycles, and conservation

119

120

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

Core Ideas •• LS2.A—Interdependent relationships in ecosystems •• LS2.B—Cycles of matter and energy transfer through ecosystems The Finger Lakes Regional Stream Monitoring Network is an environmental program of the Finger Lakes Institute based at Hobart and William Smith Colleges in Geneva, New York. Geneva sits atop Seneca Lake, one of the 11 glacial lakes formed by North America’s last ice age over 12,000 years ago in the Finger Lakes watershed of upstate New York. The institute strives to promote the importance of protecting the local water quality and ultimately the water supply for the 14-county region of central-western New York. According to Myers, Cushman, and Youngman (2011), stream monitoring—which includes water quality analysis, assessment of the physical habitat and calculating the population of microorganisms—is an important component of understanding the general health of a watershed. By using monitoring protocols developed by the FLRSMN, science teachers in grades 7−12 from surrounding schools invite their students to investigate a local stream, collect data using protocols, and submit the data to the FLRSMN as part of a comparative study of streams across the Finger Lakes area. Over the years, the data provide valuable insight as to the health of local streams that feed into the Finger Lakes. For more information about the Finger Lakes Institute and the Regional Stream Monitoring Network see http://www.hws.edu/fli/stream_monitoring.aspx. The FLRSMN involves three protocols for assessing the overall environmental conditions and health of a stream: microorganism sampling, chemical analysis of stream water, and a physical assessment of a stream bank, substrate, and surrounding terrestrial conditions. These protocols constitute the data collection process and are written in two levels or tiers. Tier 1 provides a basic introduction to a stream’s health, whereas Tier 2 provides more in-depth analysis specifically designed for high school grades. One teacher participating in the stream monitoring program is Mrs. Lindsay Orzel, an 8th-grade physical science and 9th-grade earth science teacher at Hammondsport High School in Hammondsport, New York. Hammondsport High School overlooks the Y-shaped Keuka Lake, the southernmost of the 11 Finger Lakes. At Hammondsport, Mrs. Orzel teaches all the 8th- and 9th-grade science classes, which means an easy transition for both the students and Mrs. Orzel as they move into 9th grade. Mrs. Orzel already knows the students’ learning needs. It takes her less time to get acquainted with students at the beginning of the 9th grade and affords her more instructional time to engage students in the stream project, which she extends over 2 years. Mrs. Orzel is one of over 25 teachers participating in the program. These teachers represent urban, suburban, and rural schools in the greater Finger Lakes region. Before starting the stream monitoring program, she attended a full-day orientation session held by FLRSMN staff to introduce teachers to the protocols and other available environmental resources. One major attraction of the program is the lending materials kit for participating teachers, which provides supplies and equipment not readily available in all schools. The kit includes meter reels, stopwatches, dip nets, hand magnifiers, invertebrate identification cards, buffer solutions, and LaMotte chemical analysis supplies. The kit also contains Vernier sensors and probes, along with the software interface for analyzing the collected water samples. After the orientation, Mrs. Orzel plans a spring stream project for her 8th graders, followed by a fall stream project for her 9th graders. Since the 8th graders are new to the project, Mrs. Orzel plans a more teacher-directed introduction to the use of probes. With

FOUR LEVELS OF SCIENCE INQUIRY

a structured format, students first practice handling and using the instruments in the classroom. They then move on to the field study at Cold Brook, an inlet to Keuka Lake. Here students put their new skills to use and collect data using the Tier 1 protocols. At the stream, tests include measuring water temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and chlorine and nitrate levels. Students also observe bank vegetation and identify the diversity of microorganisms found in the stream. Mrs. Orzel uses the field excursion as a time to collect data from the stream. Later, back in the classroom, students will analyze the data and draw conclusions as to the overall health of the stream. She has the 8th-grade students place their data on Excel sheets, the same format they will use when they return as 9th graders. This allows for consistency and ease in comparing one season’s data to the next. Whereas the 8th grade emphasis is on introducing the use of sensors and probes and collecting and analyzing water samples taken from the field, the 9th grade emphasis is on stream flow and the impact of the stream on the local environment, streambeds, and banks. For grade 9, Mrs. Orzel plans a geological and environmental focus to supplement the earth science curriculum. Earth science related topics include stream concentration on the physical habitat, current weather conditions and their impact on the stream, current flow, turbidity, an assessment of bank erosion, and the presence or absence of stream substrate—such as silt/mud, sand, gravel, cobbles, boulders, or bedrock. The stream monitoring also reinforces earth science skills, such as (a) calculating density; (b) graphing; (c) determining the relationships among the velocity, slope, sediment size, channel shape, and volume of a stream; (d) analyzing the depositional-erosional progression of a stream; and (e) debating the effect of human activities as they relate to quality of life in a stream environment. At 9th grade, the students return to the same Cold Brook site to again collect samples and determine how the stream has changed from the spring (when the students were 8th graders) to the fall (when they are now 9th graders). Mrs. Orzel poses the overall question, “How are the parameters of the stream that were measured in the spring different from those now measured in the fall?” To answer the question, Mrs. Orzel has a twist for the 9th-grade classes. Rather than providing a structured assignment, she asks students to choose one parameter to test at the stream and compare the findings from the previous spring to the fall. Students are also encouraged to generate their own follow-up questions based on the parameter they choose to investigate. By design, the 9th-grade stream study is more individualized and more research based. As students investigate the question, What parameters have changed that affect the stream quality? one student chooses to ask the question, How does the change in pH alter the number of organisms and the overall stream quality? Comparing two sets of data, another student asks, What are the changes of the stream parameters from spring to fall? and What are the implications of the changes? Other inquiries involve asking, How does the increase in temperature from the spring to the fall affect dissolved oxygen and nitrogen levels? How does the increase in vegetation from the spring to the fall affect the overall microorganism population of the stream? or How does the reduction on the stream discharge or velocity from spring to fall affect the overall status of the stream? In addition, Mrs. Orzel tells the students that they will use the Internet and school library to further study the parameter they choose and be able to present their findings and defend their speculations, conclusions, and claims with supported evidence to the rest of the class. In this assignment, students are introduced to the notion of scientific argumentation as they hone their communication skills. There are definite advantages to being part of an extended inquiry like the Finger Lakes Regional Stream Monitoring Network. In gathering data, students feel part of a

121

122

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

larger ongoing research project, knowing their data will be part of a sizable study examining the overall health of streams in the Finger Lakes region. Participation also opens the door for having students engage in follow-up discussions that allows them to practice the art of scientific argumentation. Here students speculate as to why the parameters change from season to season by providing an explanation and presenting reports in the class. Extended inquiries also encourage students to use online resources to supplement the investigations they plan. As Mrs. Orzel becomes enthusiastic because of the involvement students display during the stream inquiries, the 10th-grade biology teacher, Ms. Kim Voss, is also planning to continue the stream project into a third year. When the earth science students go on to biology, Ms. Voss proposes to use the project to reinforce topics in biology and ecology. But rather than returning to Cold Brook, Ms. Voss will have 10th graders visit a wetland community with a slow-moving stream called Guyanoga Creek running through it. Both teachers think this is an interesting location for the biology students since Guyanoga Creek is the outlet to Keuka Lake. This way students can collect data and compare water entering the lake at Cold Brook and exiting the lake at Guyanoga Creek. During year three of the study, biology students will not only apply the process skills developed in the prior 2 years with Mrs. Orzel but will also deepen and expand their scientific repertoire using a Tier 2 protocol. This seems entirely prudent since the Tier 2 protocols involve more emphasis on determining the number and distribution of microorganisms and the impact the stream conditions have upon the species. During this comprehensive investigation, students will evaluate the environmental health of the wetland using the degree of biological diversity, associated water qualities, and surrounding soil compositions as the defining criteria. Like they did as 9th graders, the biology students will select a parameter to research and then go to the wetland community, take samples from various locations, compare their findings, and analyze the ecological implications of their collective results. Planning extended environmental investigations allows students to engage in different levels of science inquiries—from structured to more self-directed. There are many online resources that help plan stream monitoring activities. Two excellent Web sites are the Utah State University’s Cooperative Extension and the Wyoming Stream Team. For the Utah State University’s Cooperative Extension, go to the home page at http://extension.usu.edu/waterquality. On the left hand side click “Educator Resources.” Then go to “Lesson Plans/Manuals.” Click “Stream Side Science” and then click “Stream Side Science Lesson Manual.” Or go directly to the Stream Side Science Lesson Manual at https://extension.usu.edu/waterquality/htm/educator-resources/lessonplans/sss/sssmanual/. You can download a free copy of individual chapters and activities. Other excellent print and online resources are listed on the Web site. This resource has an earth science emphasis. Mrs. Orzel frequently used this Web site to supplement her in-class stream project instruction. The Wyoming Stream Team site outlines a statewide educational stream monitoring program involving students, teachers, and other volunteers who collect water quality, physical, and biological data on Wyoming’s waterways. You can locate the resource at http://wyomingstreamteam.org/. Click “Resources” on the left side, then click “Wyoming Stream Team Program Manual” to copy activities in a pdf format. Project Watershed at http://projectwatershed.org/ is another Web site that can provide assistance to teachers who are planning a stream monitoring project. A fourth resource, although not specific to stream monitoring, is Field Investigations: Using Outdoor Environments to Foster Student Learning of Scientific Processes. This manual

FOUR LEVELS OF SCIENCE INQUIRY

was developed by the Pacific Education Institute and provides a framework for preparing students to conduct field investigations. The suggestions outlined in the manual can easily be applied to any stream or wetland community and are especially useful in showing how teachers can guide students in proposing questions to investigate. This resource can be found at www.pacificeducationinstitute.org/resources/research/.

Questions for Reflection and Discussion 1. What are the benefits of engaging students in extended investigations like Bottle Ecosystems or stream monitoring? 2. What are the benefits of engaging students in extended investigations that integrate biology and ecology with other areas of science? 3. In your experience, what helps students sustain engagement in extended, ongoing investigations? 4. In the Bottle Ecosystems case study, the teacher wanted to set the tone for inquiry at the beginning of the school year. What are some advantages and disadvantages to using this approach so early in the school year? 5. What content and skills should be included in the student assessment at the end of the Bottle Ecosystems investigation? At the end of the stream monitoring investigation? How would you assess the content and skills you identified? 6. What additions would you suggest to supplement both case studies with an emphasis on argumentation?

123

7 Modifying a Lab Activity Into an Inquiry- and Argument-Based Investigation The Role of the Laboratory in Science Despite the perennial concern in science over high-stakes testing, sagging achievement scores with international comparisons, and the rising costs of materials and equipment, doing laboratory work in high school science classes is now and has always been an integral aspect of developing scientifically literate students. As early as the end of the 19th century, Thomas Huxley embraced the importance of the laboratory experience. As Huxley (1899) put it (with apologies for the gender reference), In teaching him botany, he must handle the plants and dissect the flowers for himself: in teaching him physics and chemistry, you must not be solicitous to fill him with information, but you must be careful that what he learns he knows of his own knowledge. Don’t be satisfied with telling him that a magnet attracts iron. Let him see that it does; let him feel the pull of the one upon the other for himself. (p. 127) Today, however, with the rising cost of new technical and scientific equipment, the extra time needed to schedule labs, and the additional space needed for science labs, high school teachers are sometimes called upon to defend the need for the laboratory experience. In times of shrinking economies, many teachers are faced with the following questions: (a) Why should high schools provide students with laboratory-based science courses? (b) What role does the hands-on laboratory experience play in learning science concepts?

124

MODIFYING A LAB ACTIVITY INTO AN INQUIRY- AND ARGUMENT-BASED INVESTIGATION

Numerous arguments support laboratory-based instruction:   1. Laboratory experiences develop and reinforce manipulative skills such as handling equipment, hand-eye coordination, and sensorimotor skills. By manipulating scientific equipment and materials, students learn to manage technical skills such as massing objects, using a microscope, staining samples on slides, techniques, and performing titrations.   2. Laboratory experiences reinforce science process skills such as observing, classifying, measuring, inferring, experimenting, and manipulating variables.  3. Laboratory experiences reinforce the practice of scientific argumentation, by which students analyze their results, make speculations and claims based on supporting evidence, and then go on to defend and justify their conclusions to their peers.   4. Laboratory experiences enhance communication skills such as following directions, reading, speaking, listening, and writing lab and argument-based reports.   5. Laboratory experiences develop inquiry and investigation skills.   6. Laboratory experiences reinforce organizational skills as well as group responsibility and collaboration.   7. Laboratory experiences reinforce concepts from the lecture/discussion portion of the class and extend learning to the problem-solving level.   8. Laboratory experiences support cognitive skills, critical thinking, problem solving, scientific reasoning, and higher-order thinking skills such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.  9. Laboratory experiences provide opportunities to integrate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). 10. Laboratory experiences develop habits of mind and scientific attitudes such as curiosity, risk taking, precision, skepticism, and confidence. In America’s Lab Report (National Resource Council [NRC], 2006), the editors identify a number of science learning goals that have been attributed to laboratory experiences, including •• •• •• •• •• •• ••

enhancing mastery of subject matter, developing scientific reasoning, understanding the complexity and ambiguity of empirical work, developing practical skills, understanding the nature of science, cultivating interest in science and interest in learning science, and developing teamwork abilities. (p. 3)

Essentially, the laboratory links the concepts being studied with real-world applications. According to the National Research Council (2000a), Designing and conducting a scientific investigation requires introduction to the major concepts in the area being investigated, proper equipment, safety precautions,

125

126

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

assistance with methodological problems, recommendations for use of technologies, clarification of ideas that guide the inquiry, and scientific knowledge obtained from sources other than the actual investigation. The investigation may also require student clarification of the question, method, controls, and variables; student organization and display of data; student revision of methods and explanations; and a public presentation of the results with a critical response from peers. Regardless of the scientific investigation performed, students must use evidence, apply logic, and construct an argument for their proposed explanations. (p. 166) In the end, the laboratory experience is a multifarious and circuitous process. To become competent in experimentation and investigation, students need to understand the problem being posed, the concept on which the experiment is predicated, and the language on which the context of the procedure is based. When we talk about the language of the procedure, we refer to the process by which inquiry occurs. That frequently is referred to as the “scientific method.” And despite what some textbooks may assert, there is no one scientific method. In actuality, different questions necessitate different means of investigation. Inquiry seldom follows the step-by-step procedure prescribed by the regimen of the scientific method. The method does, however, provide an elementary, systematic, and sequential framework for understanding the complexity of an investigation. The following 12 steps describe a typical or traditional scientific laboratory experience:   1. State the problem or question to be investigated.  2. Identify all possible variables that could influence the outcome of the investigation.   3. Construct a statement or hypothesis to test.  4. Identify the manipulating (independent) variable, responding (dependent) variable, and controlled variables.   5. Design the procedure or steps to test the hypothesis.   6. Determine the supplies, material, and equipment necessary to do the investigation.   7. Carry out the investigation and acquire data.   8. Record and organize data on a table or a chart.   9. Construct a graph, label the axes, and provide a title for the graph. 10. Describe the relationship between the manipulating (independent) variable and the responding (dependent) variable. 11. Draw a conclusion to determine the validity of the hypothesis. 12. Explain the results (usually done by answering questions provided at the end of the lab).

New Approaches to Traditional Labs Many teachers prefer doing traditional labs and prescribed activities with their students. They are often more comfortable with this type of lesson because it is the way they were

MODIFYING A LAB ACTIVITY INTO AN INQUIRY- AND ARGUMENT-BASED INVESTIGATION

taught. They may say, “I like that particular lab. I’ve been doing it for years,” or “I do it because it’s in the textbook.” According to research from the U.S. Department of Education, O’Sullivan and Weiss (1999), estimate that only one in three high school students has the opportunity to design and carry out their own scientific investigations. As a nation, we will never achieve scientific literacy with this kind of dismal data. The purpose of this section is to provide the reader with suggestions for making traditional labs more inquiry and argument oriented. That is not to say that traditional labs don’t have a purpose or place in the high school science curriculum. At times, such as the beginning of the school year, when time is at a critical shortage, when students have not had prior experience in designing inquiries on their own, or even when safety is an important issue, it may be more appropriate to provide students with a directed laboratory experience. Traditional labs are most often found at the end of the chapter in the course textbook. The purpose of the lab may be to verify or confirm, through a hands-on experience, a concept previously introduced in the chapter. Commonly referred to as “cookbook” labs, these labs usually provide the student with the question to be investigated, the materials to be used, a step-by-step procedure, safety precautions, a guide on how to organize the data in a table or a chart, and leading questions for analyzing the data. When students do cookbook labs, there is a degree of certainty and predictability in the conclusions. The amount of time it takes to reach an outcome is unerringly anticipated. And the opportunity for individual dissimilarity is substantially curbed. Writing for The Science Teacher, Colburn (1996) stated that “you don’t have to abandon these [cookbook] activities to make your teaching more inquiry based. There is a middle ground between activities that are teacher directed and those that are almost totally student centered” (p. 10). By making minor changes to the format and structure of the lab, teachers can provide a transition into inquiry-based and self-directed learning. Changing a traditional textbook lab into an inquiry- and argument-based investigation can be relatively easy. It does not mean you have to give up the favorite labs you are already using. Shiland (1999) suggests that meaningful learning does not occur when students merely follow procedures identified in a prescribed lab. When you realize that cookbook labs do not meet the instructional goals you have set for your students or that you are ready to adapt some of your (or your textbook’s) existing activities, consider integrating into the lab the Seven Segments of a Scientific Inquiry that you read about in Chapter 1. What distinguishes a traditional lab from an inquiry-based lab lies in who’s responsible for doing the steps. If the teacher (or the textbook) is providing most, if not all, of the guidance to complete the lab, we can presume it’s more traditional. If the student is responsible for designing most, if not all, of the steps, we can presume it’s more inquiry based. If you go back to the steps of the traditional lab from the previous page, Steps 1 through 6 are usually presented to the student. In addition, the data table is often provided in Step 8, and sometimes a prelabeled graph is provided for Step 9. A second distinction between traditional and inquiry-based labs is that in traditional labs the emphasis in on following a prescribed set of steps to verify a predicted outcome, whereas an inquiry lab focuses on collecting evidence to substantiate or refute a particular claim. This may sound trivial, but the differences between the two focus on the overall goal the teacher embraces for the importance of learning science. Given that premise, the following steps have been modified to integrate aspects of the Seven Segments and are more characteristic of scientific inquiry and argumentation. Notice the subtleties in the differences between this version and the one previously presented:   1. State the problem or question to be investigated.   2. Identify all possible variables that could influence the outcome of the investigation.

127

128

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

  3. Construct a statement or hypothesis to test. Note, however, that not all investigations require a hypothesis, or that the investigator may choose to consider several hypotheses, thereby not being committed to any one set of predictive results.   4. Identify the manipulating (independent) variable, responding (dependent) variable, and controlled variables and decide whether a control group is needed for the investigation.   5. Design the procedure or steps to test the hypothesis or hypotheses.   6. Determine the supplies, material, and equipment necessary to do the investigation.   7. Carry out the investigation and acquire relevant data.   8. Record and organize data on a table or a chart.   9. Construct a graph, label the axes, and provide a title for the graph. 10. Describe the relationship between the manipulating (independent) variable and the responding (dependent) variable. Look for patterns within the data. 11. Draw a conclusion or claim to determine the validity of the hypothesis or hypotheses. 12. Prepare a written or oral report, a PowerPoint presentation, or a trifold poster of the claim and the evidence that supports the claim. Include the reasoning that links the claim and the evidence together. 13. Communicate an explanation by way of a scientific argument that summarizes the claim, evidence, and reasoning to peers. Defend and justify the claim with supporting evidence. Allow peers to provide counterclaims to the findings and discuss the implications of the claim to situations outside the classroom. Making the modifications from a traditional lab to a more inquiry- and argumentbased lab can be uncomplicated once the teacher has a deep-rooted appreciation for the transfer of ownership of the lab from the teacher (or textbook) to the student. The following recommendations will also assist high school science teachers in modifying their favorite time-honored labs that demonstrate the scientific method. These suggestions are presented in order, starting from the beginning of the lab and working toward the end. Realize that not all the suggestions will apply to all labs. It’s at the discretion of the teacher to decide when the suggestion is appropriate for the lab.

Do a Prelab Assessment Before actually starting the laboratory, constructivist and inquiry teachers want to know students’ prior understandings about the topic or lab being investigated. In other words, you want to gauge before you engage! By assessing prior knowledge, you may uncover many naive conceptions and misconceptions. Determining students’ points of reference for a lab will allow the inquiry-based teacher to make modifications in the way the lab is presented so as to fit the students’ past experiences. Because it is likely that a high school chemistry class will have a mixed proficiency when using scientific equipment, knowing individual students’ prior knowledge will allow the teacher to make accommodations for the diversity of students’ skills and abilities.

MODIFYING A LAB ACTIVITY INTO AN INQUIRY- AND ARGUMENT-BASED INVESTIGATION

Do the Lab First As mentioned earlier, in most textbooks, the lab is found near the end of the chapter. The placement of the lab at the end of the chapter reinforces its purpose as a means to confirm what was previously read. Resist the notion that students always need an understanding of certain concepts or facts before doing the lab. In some situations, you can give the lab first and foster inductive learning methods. Begin by choosing an exploration or a lab that is nonthreatening and highly motivating. The lab should require little prior knowledge as a prerequisite for its completion. Think, in advance, of the kinds of prompts and questions you will need to pose to students to lead them in the right direction. Use the results of the lab to stir excitement about the topic you are now about to present. Refer to the lab throughout your unit as a previous experience. The following is one example of a general chemistry lab that needs minimal prior knowledge about percent composition, solubility, mass, mixtures, evaporation, and filtration to complete the investigation. Most high school chemistry students have enough prior experience from their middle school science courses to complete the lab with little or no assistance from the teacher. The laboratory is called “Sugar and Sand.” The Objectives of the Laboratory 1. To develop the ability to analyze and solve problems 2. To plan and perform a laboratory procedure to solve a problem 3. To select materials and equipment to carry out an investigation The Task Given a 100-gram sample of a mixture of sugar and sand, the student will plan and perform a procedure that will determine the percent composition of the mass of the sugar and sand mixture. The Problem What is the percentage of sugar and sand in a mixture? The Situation You are a laboratory technician and are presented with the problem of determining the relative amounts of two compounds in a mixture. You are given a 100-gram sample of a mixture of sand and sugar. Design a procedure to determine the percentage of the mass of each of the two compounds in the sample. Once you have planned your investigation, carry out the procedure and report your findings. Materials and Equipment The following materials and equipment are available for students. Additional materials, not needed to complete the problem, may be added as distracters. This way, students will have to understand the relative importance of the item in completing the lab: •• •• •• •• ••

Triple-beam balance Filter paper Funnel Beaker Heat source or drying oven

•• •• •• ••

Evaporating dish Ring stand Stirring rods Water

129

130

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

At the conclusion of this lab, the teacher can give a presentation on percent composition, solubility, mass, mixtures, evaporation, and filtration. During the presentation, as the teacher introduces new concepts, he or she can refer back to the lab that the students performed and discuss their results.

Revise the Question Section If the lab provides a starter question to answer, as it usually does, remove it. Start by demonstrating a discrepant event for students to observe. Allow the students to think of questions to investigate from the discrepancy. Provide prompts and explorations to lead students to the original question of the activity or lab. Allowing students to come up with the question or problem makes the investigation more personal and meaningful to them. This makes the activity more like a student-initiated inquiry. When designing a lesson around the 5E Learning Cycle (introduced in Chapter 5), the Engagement or the Exploration stage can provide an excellent starting point for inquiry-based investigations. Inquiry can again be reintroduced during the Extension or Elaboration stage. Several excellent resources for demonstrations and discrepant events are listed in the back of this book.

Revise the Materials Section If the lab provides a list of needed supplies and equipment, there are several alternatives to consider. In the beginning, cut the list of needed supplies and equipment into single strips or write them on small strips of paper (1 × 5 inches) and place them in a small envelope. Include several unnecessary items in the set. Students will determine which supplies and equipment are necessary and which are not. Later, you can provide a partial list of the supplies and equipment, perhaps four of the eight items. Students will write in the missing supplies and equipment. Eventually, students will be asked to list all the supplies and equipment for the materials section. Eyster (2010) suggests that high school teachers can create more student-centered labs by listing materials on a lab sheet into three categories: (1) items that are essential to complete the investigation, (2) items that the students might find useful, and (3) items that might spark further investigations. It then becomes the students’ responsibility to decide which materials are necessary and which ones are supplementary.

Remove the Safety Rules Whether or not students design their own experimental procedures, they can always be encouraged to write the safety rules and guidelines for the lab. Consider having students align each safety rule to a particular step in the procedure. For example, if the lab calls for heating a substance in an open test tube, the students would write a safety rule connected to that specific step. You may find that students are more likely to follow a safety procedure if they suggest it. Safety rules that are imposed are often opposed.

Revise the Procedure Section This is a key area in modifying traditional labs. If the lab provides a step-by-step list of procedures, there are several alternatives to make it more student centered. In the beginning, cut the list of the individual steps in the procedure into single strips or write

MODIFYING A LAB ACTIVITY INTO AN INQUIRY- AND ARGUMENT-BASED INVESTIGATION

the steps of a lab on small strips of paper (1 × 5 inches). Place the strips in a small envelope. Give a set to each group of students. Have the students read the steps and put them into a logical and sequential order. After a few labs, provide additional, unnecessary steps in the set. Students will determine which steps are necessary and which are not. Later, you can provide a partial list of the steps, say, four of the eight steps. Students will write in the missing procedures and construct the lab. Eventually, students will design all the steps for the procedure section. Allow students to brainstorm how they would design an experiment to answer the original question, prediction, or hypothesis/hypotheses. This makes the lab more like a guided inquiry.

Add Procedural Errors Using the “Find My Mistakes” approach, Galus (2000) provides an incorrect experimental procedure and has students find the error. According to Galus (2000), Although students [are] not sure of the correct laboratory experiment necessary to test something that interests them, they [are] experts at pointing out someone else’s mistakes. [Thus] students become experts in critiquing the process and determining the right way to complete an inquiry-based laboratory exercise. (pp. 30–31)

Take Away the Data Table and Graph This suggestion is the first and foremost step in modifying a traditional lab. If the lab provides a predetermined data table, remove it. Deciding what needs to be measured is an important skill in doing any investigation. Have students determine how they will record and organize the data they collect. If time permits, have students share their proposed tables in small groups and compare the similarities and differences. Students will construct meaning for the data when they design a way to organize and record their data into a table. If they cannot formulate a data table, they probably do not understand the significance and correlation of the variables being studied or may not have mastered the skills for organizing data. By designing their own data tables, students demonstrate and reinforce their understanding of the difference between the dependent and the independent variables. The same suggestion goes for the graph. By high school, students in science should be able to construct their own graphs based on the data collected. As with the data table, if a graph is provided in the lab, take it out. For this suggestion the teacher should have the data table and graph available on a separate sheet of paper and provide it only when an individual has extreme difficulty in designing the table or graph.

Redesign the Results Section Traditional textbook labs often provide space for brief, one- or two-sentence summaries. As one means of improving students’ observation and communication skills, consider replacing these questions with the requirement that students write a detailed, narrative description of what they observed during the investigation. In the revised results section, students can describe how their observations relate to the hypothesis and reflect on the significance of the observations. Students then can predict what would happen if they changed one of the variables in the investigation. In some cases, following the completion of a lab, the teacher has students write a formal lab report. The report usually lists the question studied, the materials used, the

131

132

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

procedure followed, the data collected, a graph, and a summary of the results. In moving toward scientific argumentation, the teacher may replace the traditional lab report with an argument-based lab report described later in this chapter.

Add “Going Further” Inquiries to the End of the Lab By adding “going further” inquiries to the end of the lab, you extend the experience and use the lab as a springboard to inquiry. Allow students to raise follow-up “What if . . .” and “I wonder . . .” questions to investigate. Consider testing other variables in the original investigation. If, for example, biology students were investigating how the amount of sunlight affected the growth rate of a plant, the teacher could prepare questions as prompts to start students thinking about other variables that affect the growing rate of a plant. Individual groups of students could design additional inquiries to determine the effect of fertilizer on the growing rate. Others could test the amount of water, the type of water, the color of the light, or the type of soil on growing conditions. Look at the questions at the end of your labs and the ones provided in the textbook. If the questions provide opportunities for students to analyze the data thoughtfully, but not through additional inquiries, consider adding questions that engage students in more inquiry-based investigations. With “going further” questions, students use the initiating investigation to guide new inquiries. To save class time, we may be tempted to answer these “end of the lab” questions orally through a class discussion. However, teachers will find that when students actually do “going further” inquiries, concepts are solidified and students have opportunities to explore and extend their understandings. Most important, a “going further” investigation provides the students with opportunities to move from a structured-inquiry lab to a guided or self-directed inquiry and facilitates their becoming autonomous learners.

Modifying a Traditional Lab Into an Inquiry-Based Lab There are many benefits to a traditional lab. These labs are appropriate when students need practice in following directions or when their prior experience with doing inquiry is negligible. Sometimes safety is a concern, and other times there is just one way to perform the lab. The following is a basic step-by-step lab that can be used to reinforce the concepts presented in a unit on density. Density was chosen as an example because it’s a science concept that cuts across all science subject areas: biology, earth science, chemistry, and physics. Purpose In this lab, you will use a triple-beam balance to measure the mass, and you will use the water displacement method to measure the volume of several rock samples to calculate each rock’s density. At the end of the lab, you will describe the characteristics that distinguish sedimentary from metamorphic rocks. Question How does the density of sedimentary rocks compare to that of metamorphic rocks? Materials and Equipment •• Sample set of rocks (sedimentary and metamorphic) •• Magnifying lens

MODIFYING A LAB ACTIVITY INTO AN INQUIRY- AND ARGUMENT-BASED INVESTIGATION

•• Triple-beam balance •• 100-mL graduated cylinder large enough to hold each rock sample •• Water Procedure 1. Observe each of the four rock samples provided. 2. In the table provided, record the color and any distinguishing characteristic of each rock sample. 3. Select one of the samples. Using a triple-beam balance, determine the mass of the rock sample and place that number in the data table under the “mass” column for that sample. 4. Using a graduated cylinder, determine the volume of the rock by filling the graduated cylinder up to the 20-mL mark. Then, gently lower the rock into the cylinder by tilting the cylinder slightly on its side and sliding the rock down the cylinder. Note the new level of the water with the rock in the cylinder. Subtract the original level from the new level (20 mL) to determine the volume of the rock. Place that number in the “volume” column for that sample. 5. Repeat the procedure for the three other samples. Record the mass and the volume for each rock sample in the appropriate column of the data table. 6. After all the samples have been recorded, use the formula density = mass/volume (or D = M/V) to calculate the density of each sample. Record the answer in the “density” column of the data table for that rock. 7. After you record the data, use the rock identification guide to identify the type (sedimentary or metamorphic) and the name of each of your samples. Place that information in the last column of the data table.

Sample Number

Color and Characteristic

Mass (grams)

Volume (mL)

Density (grams /mL)

Rock Type/ Name

1 2 3 4

Questions to Answer 1. How do the texture properties differ between the sedimentary rocks and the metamorphic rocks you observed? 2. How did the densities of the sedimentary rock samples compare to the densities of the metamorphic rock samples? 3. Knowing that sedimentary rock can be transformed into metamorphic rock through intense heat and pressure, how could this account for the difference in densities between sedimentary and metamorphic rocks?

133

134

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

Addressing Misconceptions About Density In Chapter 5, you read that high school students come to science class with varying conceptions about how the natural world works. Sometimes these prior conceptions align with the universally accepted scientific explanation, and sometimes they don’t. When a student holds ideas and notions that are in conflict with the scientific explanation, the ideas are frequently labeled as misconceptions. The term misconception may be misleading since the student will probably, in time, change his or her presently held understanding to the scientifically accepted form. Maybe a better label would be naive conceptions or evolving conceptions. Elementary school students develop an awareness of density years before the topic is taught in middle or high school. Young children develop this understanding from their everyday observations and experiences. A child may notice that two balls can be the same size, yet one is heavier than the other. Such is the case when playing with a Styrofoam ball and a baseball of the same size. However, those same observations and experiences can generate many prior misconceptions about density as well. When 9th graders enter high school, some may hold several misconceptions about density. Here are some examples: •• “An object, such as a boat, floats because water is pushing up on it.” •• “The weight of an object determines if it will sink or float. Heavy objects always sink, and light objects always float.” •• “Objects with holes in it will sink. Except for a sponge. That’s the only exception.” •• “The smaller something is, the less density it has. So smaller objects are less dense than larger objects.” •• “If you cut a piece of wood in half, the density of each piece is now half of the original piece.” •• “Density is the thickness of something. Chocolate syrup is very dense because it’s so thick and takes time to pour.” •• “Oil weighs less than water. That’s why when an oil spill occurs, the oil floats on top of the water.” •• “Wood and plastic objects float. Metal objects sink.” •• “If you take a ball of clay and add more clay to it, the ball will get larger and the density will increase.” •• “Elements with a higher atomic number are denser than elements with a lower number.” If students are to understand the concept of density and, in many cases, give up their stubbornly held prior misconceptions, teachers should know that in spite of giving an in-depth lecture on density, the authority of the teacher is not be enough to change students’ misconceptions. What research says is more effective is providing students with engaging and motivating opportunities that challenge their presently held conceptions. We will see how inquiry plays an important role in helping students give up their misconceptions and adopt a scientifically accepted understanding.

Scaffolding Toward Inquiry The transfer of responsibility for learning takes prudent planning. As the ownership of the task shifts from the teacher to the student, we need to be exceedingly clear about the purpose of the learning activity. Teachers do this by communicating desired expectations

MODIFYING A LAB ACTIVITY INTO AN INQUIRY- AND ARGUMENT-BASED INVESTIGATION

and learning objectives, as well as the accountability for success. These objectives become embedded within the inquiry experience. Once we know how to scaffold investigations from more teacher directed to more student centered, we move students along the continuum toward self-directed discovery. Let’s now see ways teachers can use the various approaches to inquiry to help students develop sound understanding of density and become proprietors of their learning.

Demonstrated Inquiries As said before, a new unit can often begin with a demonstrated inquiry that ends in a discrepancy between what the student thought would happen and what actually did. These discrepant events provide a cognitive hook to engage the class at the start of the unit. The following are several demonstrated inquiries that can be used to introduce a unit of density.

Ice in an Unknown Liquid Get two large clear plastic tumblers. From a separate container filled with water and labeled “Liquid A,” fill one tumbler two-thirds of the way with Liquid A and set it aside. From a separate container filled with 70% isopropyl alcohol (IPA) and labeled “Liquid B,” fill the second tumbler two-thirds of the way with Liquid B. Do not tell students what the liquids are. Place an ice cube in each of the tumblers. Ask students to share their observations and questions. Why is one ice cube floating and the other sinking? Is there a difference in the ice cubes? Is there a difference in the liquids? What is the density of the ice cube? What is the density of Liquid A and Liquid B compared to the density of the ice cube? What would you expect to happen to the ice cube if you mixed Liquid A and Liquid B together? What would happen if you placed the ice cube in a tumbler of concentrated salt water? What would happen if you place the ice cube in a tumbler of 90% IPA? (Note that some drug stores sell both 70% and 90% IPA).

Golf Ball in a Graduated Cylinder Get a large graduated cylinder about 500 to 1,000 mL and wide enough to fit a golf ball inside it. Prepare a saturated salt solution using kosher salt flakes. Kosher salt flakes are good to use since they dissolve easily in water. Fill the graduated cylinder about one-third full with the salt solution. Now tilt the graduated cylinder on an angle and slide a golf ball (preferably a yellow or pink one) down the side of the cylinder. When you place the cylinder upright, the golf ball should float on top of the salt solution. If it doesn’t, increase the concentration of salt in the solution and try again. With the ball floating on top of the salt solution, again tilt the cylinder on a side and slowly and carefully pour water down the side. Add enough water to equal the amount of salt solution. Place the cylinder upright and the golf ball should appear to be floating in the middle of the graduated cylinder. Because the solutions are immiscible, the students will not be able to see the division between the salt solution and the water. Ask students to share their observations and questions. Why is the golf ball floating in the middle of the graduated cylinder? What do you know about the density of the golf ball compared to the density of clear solution? Ask if any of the students play golf. What happens when they hit a golf ball in the water? Where does the golf ball go? Students will ask if the golf ball is a fake. Tell them it’s a regular golf ball and nothing is tricky about it. Urge students to make speculations and

135

136

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

assumptions about the phenomenon. Encourage them to provide supporting evidence for their accusations.

Coke/Diet Coke and Smaller Sizes Many teachers have done the classic Coca-Cola/Diet Coke demonstration in their classes (Galus, 2003). Students always seem to engage with the discrepancy. To add a new twist to the activity, consider adding another variable that can enhance students’ understanding of density. Begin the activity in the usual way. Fill a 10-gallon aquarium with warm tap water and place it in full view of the class. Hold up a can of regular Coke and ask students to predict what will happen when you place the can in the water. Before you place the can in the water, have students provide reasons for their predictions. Are all the predictions the same? How many students think it will float? How many think it will sink? Place the can of Coke in the water and observe the results. Whose prediction was correct? Now repeat the activity with a can of Diet Coke. Again have the students made a prediction before you place it in the water. Allow time for students to provide an explanation for the phenomenon. Many may know that the regular Coke is sweetened with corn syrup, which is much denser than artificial sweeteners such as aspartame. Next, repeat the activity using regular Coke with caffeine versus regular Coke without caffeine. Then try Diet Coke with caffeine versus Diet Coke without caffeine. Does the presence of caffeine alter the results? Why or why not? To challenge their understanding of density, repeat the demonstration using a 12-ounce size regular Coke with a smaller 7.5-ounce size. Are there some students that think the larger size will again sink but the smaller size will float? If so, have both sides present their prediction with supportive evidence and reasoning. Since most students have little experience with the smaller size cans, they will probably make a prediction based on similar understandings or on faulty reasoning. Think about how difficult it is for some students to undergo a conceptual change, even in light of observational evidence. Teachers can take this activity further by comparing similar cans of Coke and Pepsi. Or Diet Coke versus Coke Zero. Or Coke versus 7-Up, root beer, or orange soda. And if your school would allow such a demonstration, you can also test Bud versus Bud Lite! Just tell your principal it’s in the interest of science.

Structured Inquiries The traditional lab that was introduced a few pages back can serve as a basis for a structured inquiry. With some simple modifications, the lab can encourage more ownership on the part of the student and offer follow-up inquiries to investigate at its end. Consider first introducing the lesson with a discrepant event from the previous section. Then prompt students to design an investigation on how they might measure the densities of various rocks. The standard lab can also become more student centered by eliminating the data table and having students design their own method of recording and organizing the data collected. The lab can also have “going further” questions or guided inquiries as a follow-up. One example may include having students sequence the densities of five unknown rocks (this time including igneous rocks) and minerals from least to greatest density. Students can then use rock and mineral guides to identify the type and name of each of the unknown samples.

Guided Inquiries Guided inquires offer fewer directions for students. The example below shows one way the traditional rock lab (from above) can be modified into a guided inquiry.

MODIFYING A LAB ACTIVITY INTO AN INQUIRY- AND ARGUMENT-BASED INVESTIGATION

Purpose Measuring density is a basic science skill that cuts across all science subject areas: biology, earth science, chemistry, and physics. In this lab, you will calculate the densities of several unknown rocks samples and then use their densities and physical characteristics to determine each rock’s type and name. Question How does the density of sedimentary rocks compare to that of metamorphic rocks? Investigation Use the text resources in the room and the Internet to find out how density is measured. Obtain a means to measure the density of an irregular shaped object, such as a rock. Decide what kinds of measurements you need to take to calculate the density of each rock sample. Also decide the kinds of materials and equipment you will need to make such measurements. Make a list of the supplies and equipment you will need. Then, design a procedure to calculate the density. Include any safety rules you will need to follow. Design a data table and make all notations and recordings in your science journal. Show all work for the calculations in your journal. Have the teacher approve the procedure before beginning. Analysis 1. What is the density for each rock sample you measured? 2. From the density, color, and other observable characteristics, use a rock identification guide to classify the type (sedimentary or metamorphic) and name of each rock sample. 3. How did the densities of the sedimentary rock samples compare to the metamorphic rock samples? 4. Knowing that sedimentary rock can be transformed into metamorphic rock through intense heat and pressure, how could this account for the difference in densities between sedimentary and metamorphic rocks?

Now It’s Your Turn Using the example above, choose one or more of the following science areas and write a guided inquiry based on the application of density to that area of science. Include the purpose of the inquiry, the question to be investigated, suggestions to help the student design the investigation, and several follow-up questions to assist in the analysis of the findings. After you write your inquiry, share it with a colleague. General Science 1. Write a guided inquiry where a student calculates and compares the densities of five different 1-inch balls (Styrofoam, rubber, wooden, glass [marble], and steel balls). 2. Write a guided inquiry where the student discovers how the concentration of salt in water affects its density. Use swimming in the Great Salt Lake as one example.

137

138

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

3. Write a guided inquiry where the student demonstrates how a life jacket saves someone from drowning. 4. Write a guided inquiry where the student investigates the question: Does the peel (or skin) of a fruit affect its density and ultimately whether it will sink or float? Use a banana, orange, grape, apple, kiwi, and so forth as examples. 5. Write a guided inquiry where the student measures the density of a whole 3 Musketeers candy bar. Then have the student cut the bar in half and make a prediction whether the density of the half pieces will increase, decrease, or remain the same. The student should provide supporting evidence to determine whether the prediction was correct or not. Biology 1. Write a guided inquiry where the student determines the population density of an ecosystem for a specific species (plant or animal). 2. Write a guided inquiry where the student describes the human population growth rate and its impact on the population density of several highly populated countries in the world. Earth Science 1. Write a guided inquiry where the student is given 10 rocks and the task of sequencing the samples from the least to the most dense. 2. Write a guided inquiry where the student investigates the relationship between air pressure and density. Include an explanation about what happens to the density of air as the elevation or altitude increases. Environmental Science 1. Write a guided inquiry where the student simulates an oil spill in water and compares the densities of the two liquids. Relate the information to recent oil spills and to cleanup and recovery efforts. Chemistry 1. Write a guided inquiry where the student compares the densities of different gases such as air, helium, carbon dioxide, and propane. Prompt the student to fill balloons with an equal amount of each gas and compare differences. Physics 1. Write a guided inquiry where the student calculates and compares the densities of solids. Suggest that the student use different types of wood (balsa, cedar, pine, maple, and walnut). 2. Write a guided inquiry where the student calculates and compares the densities of liquids by pouring different liquids of different densities down a graduated cylinder. Liquid layers can be formed using corn oil, water, glycerin, and corn syrup.

MODIFYING A LAB ACTIVITY INTO AN INQUIRY- AND ARGUMENT-BASED INVESTIGATION

Suggest that the student carefully drop several solid objects in the cylinder and see at which level they rest. Solid objects can include a steel bolt, a rubber stopper, a piece of plastic, and a small block of wood.

Self-Directed Inquiries For self-directed or student-initiated inquiries, we now understand that the source of the question comes from the student. This is considered the uppermost level of inquiry since the ownership of the question is derived from and planned by the student. According to Hermann and Miranda (2010), with the help of encouragement from teachers, students can learn to formulate and carry out their own science investigations. By using an Inquiry Question Template, students learn to independently construct a question to investigate, design a procedure to test the question, and analyze the data collected during the inquiry. Hermann and Miranda (2010) divide their 15-step template into three parts: the prelab questions, the research question, and the experiment. Step 1: During the prelab, the student observes a phenomenon and responds to the following questions and tasks: 1. List several observations and inferences that can be made from the phenomenon you observed. 2. From the observations and inferences you recorded, what variables can be identified and tested? 3. From the variables recorded from Step 2, choose one variable (the independent variable) to test. 4. Decide how you would measure the independent variable you choose. 5. What factors (the dependent variables) could be affected by the independent variable? Choose one dependent variable to include in your investigation. 6. Decide how you would measure the dependent variable. 7. What materials will you need to test the variables selected? Step 2: During the formation of the researchable question, the student completes the following task: 1. Based on the variables selected in the prelab, write a question you can test. Include the independent and depend variables in your response. Step 3: During the formation of the experiment, the student completes the following questions and tasks: 1. Write the steps you will follow in conducting the experiment. 2. Gather the materials needed to complete the experiment. 3. Make a data table to record and organize the results of your experiment. 4. Plot a graph that shows the relationship between the independent and dependent variables.

139

140

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

5. From the graph, describe the relationship between the variables tested. 6. What conclusions and claims can you draw from the data collected? 7. Scrutinize your results and decide if any sources of error influenced the data. If it was, how could they be minimized? Hermann and Miranda (2010) believe that using the suggested template eliminates unnecessary disappointments and results in a rewarding experience for both the student and the teacher.

Writing an Inquiry/Argument-Based Lab Report Most high school science teachers require a written lab based on a standard format to be handed in at the conclusion of the lab. A standard format usually found in science textbooks includes many or all of the following sections: 1. The Title of the Lab 2. The Question 3. The Hypothesis to be Tested 4. The Materials Needed

5 Safety Measures 6. The Procedure 7. The Data Table and/or Graph 8. The Conclusion

This style of lab report is pretty straightforward and focuses on restating the process and procedure that was followed. In most cases the textbook lab write-up ends with questions for the student that help summarize the data and draw conclusions from the findings. This type of lab report serves a legitimate function—to reiterate the scientific process taken by the investigator and to confirm the accuracy of the hypothesis stated beforehand. There is nothing wrong with this type of lab report. It serves to help students organize and capture their ideas in a logical, written arrangement. However, if you are interested in having students write an inquiry/argument-based report, the standard format is no longer appropriate. The format below identifies the sections for an inquiry/argument-based report. You can see that more weight is placed on the analysis and discussion sections. As in a research article published in a scientific or medical journal, the author focuses more attention on the meaning of the inquiry rather than the mechanics. A suggested point value has been placed on each of the sections to highlight its importance in the report: •• •• •• •• •• •• ••

Introduction and background (10 pts.) Question (5 pt.) Prior assumptions and/or hypothesis (or hypotheses)—if appropriate (5 pts.) Variables (5 pts.) Method (10 pts.) Data (15 pts.) Analysis (25 pts.) {{ Describe the relationship among variables (10 pts.) {{ State a claim backed with supporting evidence (15 pts.) •• Explanation and discussion (25 pts.)

MODIFYING A LAB ACTIVITY INTO AN INQUIRY- AND ARGUMENT-BASED INVESTIGATION

The Current Debate About High School Science Labs Unquestionably, the United States requires high school and college graduates with a foundation of scientific literacy to meet today’s demand for highly skilled technical workers and to fulfill tomorrow’s need for scientists and engineers. High school laboratory experiences have in the past and will continue in the future to play a vital role in achieving that goal. However, there still seems to be a disparity in how high school teachers view the role of science labs in their courses. Some teachers think that the major contribution of laboratories lies in two areas: (a) helping students develop lab skills by following prescribed procedures and manipulating scientific equipment and (b) verifying the acceptability of content presented in earlier lectures and readings. In this case, the lab becomes an “addon” to the topic being presented and is usually completed toward the end of the unit after the introduction of content terms and vocabulary. According to America’s Lab Report (NRC, 2006), “Rapid developments in science, technology, and cognitive research have made the traditional definition of science laboratories—as rooms in which students use special equipment to carry out well-defined procedures obsolete” (p. 31). Others see the lab as an integral part of the lesson where students explore their ideas and test their assumptions through inquiry and argumentation. This notion closely parallels the National Research Council’s suggestions for laboratory experiences as outlined in America’s Lab Report (NRC, 2006). In that document, the NRC makes the following statements about the role of inquiry and argumentation in the high school science lab: •• According to the standards, regardless of the scientific investigation performed, students must use evidence, apply logic, and construct an argument for their proposed explanations. These standards emphasize the importance of creating scientific arguments and explanations for observations made in the laboratory. (p. 28) •• Student laboratory experiences that reflect these aspects of the work of scientists would include learning about the most current concepts and theories through reading, lectures, or discussions; formulating questions; designing and carrying out investigations; creating and revising explanatory models; and presenting their evolving ideas and scientific arguments to others for discussion and evaluation. (p. 34) •• Laboratory experiences may promote a student’s ability to identify questions and concepts that guide scientific investigations; to design and conduct scientific investigations; to develop and revise scientific explanations and models; to recognize and analyze alternative explanations and models; and to make and defend a scientific argument. Making a scientific argument includes such abilities as writing, reviewing information, using scientific language appropriately, constructing a reasoned argument, and responding to critical comments. (pp. 76–77) •• Recently, research has focused on an important element of scientific reasoning—the ability to construct scientific arguments. Developing, revising, and communicating scientific arguments is now recognized as a core scientific practice. (p. 92) •• Laboratory experiences play a key role in instructional units designed to enhance students’ argumentation abilities, because they provide both the impetus and the data for constructing scientific arguments. (p. 92) •• Over the past 10 years, researchers studying laboratory education have shifted their focus. Drawing on principles of learning derived from the cognitive sciences,

141

142

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

they have asked how to sequence science instruction, including laboratory experiences, in order to support students’ science learning. We refer to these instructional sequences as “integrated instructional units.” Integrated instructional units connect laboratory experiences with other types of science learning activities, including lectures, reading, and discussion. Students are engaged in framing research questions, making observations, designing and executing experiments, gathering and analyzing data, and constructing scientific arguments and explanations. (p. 107) It is now crystal clear that science instruction and the laboratory experience will take a sweeping turn with the inception of A Framework for K−12 Science Education (NRC, 2012) and the Next Generation Science Standards (NRC, 2013). High school science teachers will soon face the challenge of implementing these new standards in their classrooms. This will require thoughtful reflection regarding one’s current practices and methodology and comparing them to the new reform strategies fostering scientific inquiry and argumentation.

Case Study: The Hydrate Lab The following case study is an example of how one high school chemistry teacher, Tom Mueller, took a traditional copper sulfate hydrate lab and revised it using the 5E Learning Cycle, making it more inquiry based. The original lab provided the question to be studied, the materials to be used, the steps in the procedure, and a predetermined table for organizing the data. The activities in the Hydrate Lab align with A Framework for K−12 Science Education (NRC, 2012) for the following standards: Practices •• •• •• •• ••

Developing and using models Planning and carrying out investigations Analyzing and interpreting data Constructing explanations Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information

Crosscutting Concepts •• Structure and function Core Ideas •• PS2.A Structure and properties of matter For the hydrate lab during the previous year, Tom’s students completed a prelab assessment. As part of the assessment, students observed crystals of copper (II) sulfate pentahydrate and recorded their observations. After giving the class the prelab assessment, Tom determined that many of the students had difficulty believing that small blue crystals of copper sulfate could have any water content. Because he knew the phenomenon of hydration was an essential concept of the school’s chemistry curriculum, he

MODIFYING A LAB ACTIVITY INTO AN INQUIRY- AND ARGUMENT-BASED INVESTIGATION

decided this year to revise his approach to the lab based on the students’ prior conceptions. He modified the lab through an extended 5E Learning Cycle. The following is a synopsis of Tom’s revision.

Engagement Anticipating that students would have difficulty understanding the notion that the blue crystals contained water, Tom showed the class an apple and posed the question, “Does this apple contain any water?” Taking a big bite out of the apple and squirting juice in all directions, he continued, “How do you know?” Tracy answered by saying, “Sure, the apple is juicy, and some of that juice is made up of water.” “That’s a great start,” Tom suggested. “Now, how could you determine the percentage of water in the apple?” Jason responded by saying, “You would have to weigh the apple to determine its mass. Then heat it to drive off all the water inside the apple and reweigh the apple to calculate the percentage of water.” After a bit more discussion, Tom pulled a dehydrated apple from his desk, held it up for the class to see, and gave the students its mass in grams before and after heating. Two minutes later, the students had calculated the percentage of water in the apple to be 65%.

Exploration Now that the students had a concrete understanding of the percentage of water in an apple, it was time to move on to various other fruits. On his desk, Tom then placed a bowl containing oranges, grapes, plums, bananas, cherries, and a few exotic-looking fruits. “For homework tonight,” Tom explained, “your assignment is to take one of these fruits and heat it gently in the oven at home to drive off all the water. Tomorrow in class, you will mass the fruit and determine the percentage of water in it.” He had each student come up and choose a fruit. The students were instructed to mass their sample and place it in a clear plastic zip-top bag before the end of the class. The next day, they would remass their shriveled sample and determine the percentage of water.

Explanation The following day, Tom presented a short lecture on the concept of hydration while students took notes. Later, he had the students re-mass their samples and share their calculations on the percentage of water found in the fruits. Jessica offered to share her calculations for the banana with the class: Mass of the banana before heating = 110 grams Mass of the banana after heating = 52 grams Mass of water driven off = 58 grams Percentage of water = 53% Other students posted their fruits and percentages. The samples were then placed in sequential order from the greatest to the least amount of water. Some students then

143

144

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

shared comments about using fruit hydrators and the benefits of freeze-dried fruits when hiking and camping.

Extension and Elaboration With the fruit hydration example in mind, students now were given the task of designing a lab to determine the percentage of water in copper (II) sulfate pentahydrate crystals. By applying the formula from the previous activity, students worked in groups to develop a procedure and experiment for determining the percentage of water in copper (II) sulfate pentahydrate. They also used the example from the fruit investigation to design their own charts and tables to organize the data. Many students decided to use the following materials: •• •• •• •• •• ••

A sample of copper (II) sulfate pentahydrate crystals A heat source A test tube A test-tube holder A ring stand An electronic balance

The groups also had to record their own safety rules for the lab. With lots of ideas flying about, one group brainstormed the idea of using an evaporating dish versus heating the sample in a test tube. In the end, all the groups were able to design and carry out the experiment. At the conclusion of the data analysis, the percentage of error among the student groups was discussed.

Evaluation As an evaluation of the hydrate concept, some students were given samples of other hydrates to calculate the percentage of water. Other students were given two samples and had to determine which sample was the hydrate and which was the nonhydrate. In either case, students had to use the knowledge and skills from the original investigation and apply it to a new performance task. This is just one example of how teachers can revise a traditional lab and make it more inquiry oriented and student centered. As science teachers decide to use more inquirybased investigations, there is no reason to discard the time-honored labs they have done over the years. Consider modifying aspects of the lab and turn over more decision making and responsibility to the students. By following the suggestion made earlier in the chapter, you will find the transition into inquiry to be a smooth and evolving process.

Questions for Reflection and Discussion 1. In the Hydrate Lab, how does the teacher use the engagement stage as a “cognitive hook” to get students started in the investigation? How does this illustration make the lab seem more relevant? 2. Think of several labs you presently give to students that can be modified into an inquiry-based lab. Which of your labs are not appropriate for inquiry?

MODIFYING A LAB ACTIVITY INTO AN INQUIRY- AND ARGUMENT-BASED INVESTIGATION

3. Read the following activities and decide which are inquiry based and which are not. Determine whether the activity is hands-on, minds-on, project based, or inquiry based. Share your assessments with a partner and discuss the similarities and differences in your responses. To frame your argument, use the templates and starter sentences provided in the Preface and Chapter 2. Activity 1: Ninth-grade earth science students complete a cloud formation calendar by cutting out pictures or taking digital photographs of daily cloud types and mounting the pictures or photographs on the day of the calendar. At the end of the month, students calculate the percentage of cloudy days for that month, classify the occurrence of various cloud formations for that month, and prepare a written report of their results. Activity 2: Tenth-grade biology students are studying adaptation and have been given the task of constructing a poster exhibit showing ways both plants and animals have adaptations to survive. Students use online resources to research topics such as seed dispersal, protective coloration, hibernation/migration behaviors, opposable thumbs, adjusting metabolic rates, and being able to survive extreme hot or cold temperatures. Each group is responsible for presenting a 5-minute oral presentation to the class. Some groups use PowerPoint to present their exhibit. Others visit the local zoo to take pictures of animals to comment on their adaptations to survive in the wild. Activity 3: Eleventh-grade chemistry students are studying neutralization reactions. They are given the task of determining which over-the-counter antacid is most effective. One student proposes that they have to decide what “effective” means and how can it be quantified. Another student suggests that the group measures how many tablets are needed to change the pH of 100 mL of acid from 5 to 7. Activity 4: Twelfth-grade environmental science students monitor the concentration of insoluble particles in water samples taken from a nearby stream. Their teacher suggests filtration as a method to determine the level of particles in the water. Students take samples from the same location over a period of 1 month and analyze the results. The students are required to submit a written report to the teacher describing their findings and recommendations. Activity 5: Twelfth-grade physics students are studying electrical circuits. Students are given the task of wiring a doll house with electricity so that each room has a separate light and switch. Students are provided with directions on how to make a parallel circuit, insulated copper wire, wire cutters, bulb holders, micro bulbs, screwdrivers, knife switches, and a 9-volt battery as a source of electricity.

145

8 Managing the Inquiry-Based Classroom The Implementation Curve Whether teachers well versed in the use of inquiry or educators new to its practice, their observations regarding student interest and behavior in their inquiry-based classrooms are the same. There is an implementation curve based on the performance of students as they move from being introduced to inquiry to becoming comfortable with the inquiry style of learning. The curve’s typical phrases, as illustrated below, are Anticipation, Tolerance, Disillusionment, Rejuvenation, and finally, Realization. At the beginning of the school year, as the teacher’s enthusiasm is communicated to the students, the level of student interest rises. During this initial phase, inquiry is a novel learning strategy, and students seem to thrive on this method of studying new concepts. But by November or December, some teachers say, the “honeymoon” is over as they begin to experience occasional resistance from students who all of a sudden discover that the focus and responsibility of learning is on them, not on the teacher. During this phase, students often ask, “Why don’t you just tell us the answer? You’re the teacher. You’re supposed to give us the answer.” This is a critical time for teachers new to inquiry because students may challenge their beliefs about effective teaching and learning. After hearing student discontent day after day, the natural temptation may be to give in and return to the customary way of teaching. But the best advice is to stick with it and tell students that the one way a teacher can be truly effective is by placing the onus of learning on the students. As one teacher tells her students, “If I keep giving you the answer, I won’t be doing my job as a teacher. You have to learn to think for yourself.” Soon, the proprietorship of inquiry re-escalates as students come to realize what real learning entails—ownership and self-determination. As teachers progress through the learning curve, they understand the challenges they will face, as well as their students, and plan instruction accordingly.

146

MANAGING THE INQUIRY-BASED CLASSROOM

Level of Student Acceptance of Inquiry

Figure 8.1   Five Developmental Phases in Implementing Inquiry-Based Science Instruction

Realization

Tolerance Rejuvenation Anticipation

Disillusionment

Time

Source: Adapted from Tuckman, 1965.

One high school teacher, who’s also a mother of two teenage girls, sees an analogy between getting her biology students accustomed to inquiry and raising teens. Linda explains, “Good parents don’t give in to the teenage tantrums despite the pressure or because it might be easier to do so. Similarly, being a good teacher means having to set high expectations and helping students reach them.”

Challenges to Inquiry-Based Teaching Aside from the research and teachers’ commentaries that confirm that inquiry-based teaching can be an effective means to engage students and increase academic achievement in science, the question still lingers: after nearly three decades of recommendations from the Benchmarks for Science Literacy (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1993), the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996), A Framework for K−12 Science Education (NRC, 2012), and the Next Generation Science Standards (NRC, 2013), why don’t we see inquiry- and argument-based instruction in more high school science classrooms? This, of course, is not a new question for science educators. Back in the mid-1980s, Costenson and Lawson (1986), in an article for The American Biology Teacher titled “Why Isn’t Inquiry Used in More Classrooms?” concluded that to implement inquiry in the classroom we see three critical ingredients: (1) teachers must understand precisely what scientific inquiry is, (2) they must have sufficient understanding of the structure of the (content) itself, and (3) they must become skilled in inquiry teaching techniques. Lacking this knowledge and skills, teachers are left with little choice but to teach facts in the less effective expository way. (p. 158)

147

148

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

There are many reasons why high school science teachers say they can’t teach through inquiry. Some of those reasons may be because of what are believed to be externally conceived factors. Others may be more internally imposed. In Chapter 4, you read a list of reasons. Look back to that page and reread the list. Identify the reasons as either externally or internally imposed. High school science teachers say the number one reason preventing them from doing full inquiry-based labs is lack of time. Coupled with the number of content standards to be taught and the high-stakes assessment that frequently is associated with high school science curricula, finding classroom time to do scientific inquiry is a challenge to teachers. The question that faces us now becomes this—knowing full well that open-ended investigations and unraveling students’ misconceptions take more time than customary learning methods, how can science teachers make time in the day to do more inquiry-based instruction? This chapter will answer that question. But before going on, look back to the question. Notice the phrase “make time.” It doesn’t say “find time.” In The Tao of Teaching, Greta Nagel (1994) suggests that it’s not about finding time, it’s about making time. Whereas finding time implies a passive search, possibly in a nonlinear, nonsystemic, random process, making time involves the teacher in an active process of planning, and thus becoming more effective and efficient with the limited amount of classroom time available. Making time is an active process. It implies ownership and empowerment. So as you continue on your journey to become an inquiry science teacher, think positive and learn ways to be more effective and efficient with your precious instructional time—thus making more opportunities for inquiry learning. Expect to face many challenges, but be mindful that they are challenges, not barriers. On your journey expect to be constantly calibrating your comfort zone—finding the strategies and methodologies that work best for you. Be mindful that not everything you read about will be perfectly situated to your classroom. Be faithful to your journey. When the task seems daunting, don’t give in to the loyalists of the status quo. Find a supportive ally to share your challenges and solutions with, and, above all, persevere.

Making Time for Inquiry and Argumentation Effective time management is the key to an inquiry and argument-based classroom. It’s obvious you can’t teach when the room is in chaos. For that reason, I always suggest that teachers first get their “classroom management house” in order before attempting to implement inquiry and argument-based strategies. Most teachers should use their first year of teaching to get familiar and comfortable with the course content and expectations. Year two is a better time to progress to inquiry teaching. Year two is also a better time to differentiate between intervention classroom management practices (dealing with student misbehavior as it occurs) versus prevention practices (averting student misbehavior before it occurs). Benjamin Franklin is credited with saying, “Lost time is never found again.” Consider the teacher who loses the first 2 minutes at the beginning of class in getting students settled down and another minute in taking attendance, and who also gives students the last 2 or 3 minutes at the end of the period to do homework or get ready to pass to the next class. Not including additional lost time for other outside disturbances such as phone calls, announcements, and late students with or without passes, it is not uncommon for teachers to lose 6 minutes of instructional time per period! It may not seem like

MANAGING THE INQUIRY-BASED CLASSROOM

much, but when we multiply 6 minutes over 180 school days, it calculates to 1,080 minutes, or 18 hours, a school year. Put another way, it becomes twenty-four 45-minute periods. That’s an entire month lost to noninstructional time—time that could be used to engage students with inquiry. Although typical approaches to time include lengthening the school year, reducing class size, or narrowing the curriculum (i.e., less is more), the purpose of this chapter is to provide science teachers with simple, practical suggestions for making time for inquiry. You are likely to discover that many of the suggestions are not new. However, we can be remiss in implementing even the fundamental strategies for time management. Time is the only phenomenon that is both a constant and a variable. Using the clock wisely means more instructional time for student-centered instruction. If you don’t control the clock, the clock will control you! Teachers can implement several strategies to make time for inquiry, as outlined below.

Use Essential Questions Write and post an essential (or starter) question on a separate strip of poster paper before the students enter the room. Posting the essential question avoids students asking, “What are we going to do today?” Students will become accustomed to the routine of reading the question that identifies the objective of the lesson. Avoid writing the essential question on the blackboard or SMART board. When teachers write the essential question on the blackboard or SMART board, it is usually visible only for a minute. Keep the essential question visible throughout the lesson. Posting the essential question focuses the students at the beginning of the lesson. Plus, it serves as a reminder to review and bring closure to the lesson. Along with the essential question, the teacher can also post the agenda for the lesson, showing the sequence and the estimated time limit for each section of the lesson. The posting can identify what materials students need to complete the assignment and the expected outcome.

The First Second At the start of the school year, begin instruction on the first second of the first minute of the first day. Don’t use the first day for filling out attendance cards, distributing textbooks, or other trivial administrative matters. Those tasks can be done later. Start the class by developing a sense of urgency and communicating the importance of learning. Make a statement by starting the course with a highly engaging and action-oriented activity. This way, students leave with a “wow” impression of your course and want to come back tomorrow for more! Throughout the school year, use the entire instructional period by working bell to bell. In other classes, students may expect to have a few minutes at the beginning and the end of the period to socialize or start homework, but not in yours. Begin your classes as soon as the bell rings even though all the students may not be in the room. Communicate to students that you begin on time and that they are also expected to be in the room on time. You will soon find that the first 2 minutes of class sets the tone for the remainder of the period. Do not allow students to pack up until the bell rings. Soon, the class will come to understand that working the entire period is part of the classroom culture and your effective use of valuable instructional time. Use the final 2 or 3 minutes of class to review the essential question or give an oral or written quiz to assess their learning, as well as the success of your teaching. That will provide suggestions for revisions. If you make

149

150

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

concluding comments too soon, that becomes a signal for students that the lesson is over and it’s time to pack up and get ready to move on to the next class.

Develop Daily Rules and Routines Despite what students say, most want to know that there are classroom rules and routines to maintain order. Examples include passing back assignments as students come in the door or introducing the lesson by using an essential question. Avoid using prime instructional time for taking attendance. Instead, have a student take attendance and spot check regularly. You can also take attendance while students are working on an assigned task. The effective use of instructional time starts with sound classroom management strategies. Out-of-control student behaviors cause the loss of instructional time. When calling on students, tell them to “raise your hand if you know the answer to this question.” Insist on nonverbal behaviors for recognition. Avoid calling on students who shout out answers.

Design Your Lesson Plans Based on Time Allotments Use your planning time to design lessons based on 10- or 15-minute intervals. Balance your lesson plan with individual work, small-group work, and whole-class instruction. Keep to the time allotted for each segment. With 3 to 4 minutes remaining until the end of the class, provide a brief summary, reflection, review, and closure to the lesson.

Teach to the Essential Core Concepts Curriculum developers always seem good at adding to the curriculum, but they seldom subtract from it. To make time for inquiry, cut the fat out of the curriculum and teach to the essential core. Avoid adding extended topics that eat up prime instructional time and are not part of the curriculum. To maximize classroom time, consider selecting one or two topics that can be learned through independent study, by outside readings or homework, or by using the Internet. Additionally, many basic concepts in the curriculum can be learned through self-study or assigned study groups.

Pick Up the Pace Confine lectures to shorter periods of time, usually 15 to 20 minutes, and limit off-task discussions during a teacher-led presentation. When a student raises a question, determine if the question stems from that one student, several students, or the entire class. If the question applies specifically to only one student’s concern, it may be more appropriate to address that question individually with the student at the end of class. Before beginning an activity or assignment, be sure the students understand its objectives and purpose. Limit the time used to read the directions aloud to the class. Have students read the directions silently to themselves and then ask several students to repeat the expectations of the activity. Having students correctly repeat the objectives, procedures, or expectations provides evidence that the directions are clear and the students know what to do during the investigation. To close the lesson, pose the question, “What are the two most significant points of today’s lesson?” or “What do you know now that you didn’t know 45 minutes ago?” Ask

MANAGING THE INQUIRY-BASED CLASSROOM

a student to summarize the main points of the lesson and set the transition for the next day by saying, “Tomorrow we will be studying . . .”

Use Organized Workstations As an alternative to typical labs, whenever possible consider redesigning the lab so that students rotate to six or seven stations to complete a task. In biology, stations may be appropriate when viewing various specimens under the microscope. In earth science, stations are an alternative when testing various samples of rocks or minerals or conducting simple chemical tests. Since each station offers a new and different task, rotating from station to station keeps the class engaged and motivated.

Use Concept Maps Concept maps are schematic diagrams that identify the relationships and interconnections among concepts for a particular topic. Concept maps usually have either a radial (or weblike) orientation, with the main idea in the center of the map, or a hierarchical orientation, with the main idea at the top of the map. Concept maps are, in a way, mental maps that guide our thinking. Novak (1998) reports that when students frequently use concept maps, they learn how to negotiate meaning, organize ideas, and become more effective learners. When constructing a concept map, it is important to do the following: 1. Place the main idea at the center or top of the map. 2. Organize the words or concepts from most general to most specific. 3. Use a linking word (verb, preposition, or short phrase) to connect and illustrate the relationships and linkages from one idea to another. Software programs such as Inspiration provide a step-by-step guide to show how to create concept maps and graphic organizers. For more information and a trial sample, see www.inspiration .com. 4. Use crossing links to make connections between words in different areas of the map. 5. Add to the map as new knowledge is constructed. Figure 8.2 is an example of a concept map with radial orientation. Teachers can make the students’ class time more efficient by using concept maps or graphic organizers for note-taking. As students gain mastery in using concept maps, they develop an understanding of the relationships among elements of a concept, ultimately making incremental gains in moving from novices to expert learners. According to Bransford, Brown, and Cocking, experts differ from novices in that experts notice features and patterns of information . . . have acquired a great deal of content knowledge that is organized in ways that reflect deep understanding . . .  and their knowledge cannot be reduced to a set of isolated facts or propositions but, instead, reflects contexts of applicability. (NRC, 2000b, p. 31) In endorsing that belief, Pellegrino, Chudowsky, and Glaser argue, “Most important, they have efficiently coded and organized this information into well-connected schemas . . . 

151

152 used for

as

leads to

advanced organizer

better understanding

can be

by

connected by

construction of knowledge

introduce a chapter

used to

instructional tools

that show

show

are

used for

assess prior knowledge

and

preconceptions

graphic relationships among concepts

expressed as

nonlinear organization

note-taking techniques

multidimensional

hierarchy from general to specific

linking words (verbs or prepositions)

Figure 8.2  Concept Map

as

connections visible

make

Concept Maps

assessment

as

review or summary

as

are

webs or diagrams

illustrated by

represent information and knowledge

to

constructed

and

modified throughout lesson

as

new knowledge is assimilated

post-assessment

shows

evolution of child’s thought

MANAGING THE INQUIRY-BASED CLASSROOM

[which] help experts interpret new information and notice features and meaningful patterns of information that might be overlooked by less competent learners” (NRC, 2001b, p. 73). Furthermore, by constructing concept maps, students enhance a metacognitive approach to learning by negotiating one’s ideas, taking control of one’s own learning, and monitoring one’s progress. Finally, when using concept maps in class, at the end of class, the teacher should post his or her master copy, allowing students to compare their notes to it. Concept maps have also been widely used in assessing presently held knowledge and documenting the acquisition and progression of new knowledge (Edmondson, 2000). This is accomplished by simply having the student create a concept map citing his or her pre-understandings about a particular topic prior to the start of a unit of study. As the student completes the concept map, the teacher can determine what the student knows about the topic. As the unit progresses, the student can return to the map and make corrections (from prior misconceptions) and additions, citing newly acquired information. Using a different colored pencil or pen for each revision makes it easy to visualize how knowledge is constructed and modified. The concept map then acts as a vehicle for initiating a discussion on the student’s pre- and post-knowledge.

Assign Students to Work in Pairs When students work in pairs, they are more likely to stay on-task and use class time effectively. Usually when students work in pairs, the teacher spends less time dealing with distractions and off-task behaviors. Larger groups tend to produce added socializing and off-task behavior during the lab. Additionally, larger groups make it easier for one or two students in the group to become inattentive and non-participatory members. When lab groups consist of three or four students, the responsibility often lies with one or two of the students in the group to carry out the lab. Group size will, of course, be predicated on the nature of the assignment as well as the quantity of supplies and equipment available.

Provide Time Limits State the amount of time students have to complete a task, a lab, or an assignment. Stick to the time limit. Avoid allowing a 5-minute activity to take 10 minutes. Asking “Who needs more time?” will only communicate to students that it’s okay to waste time during the assignment. Consider using a stopwatch to announce the remaining time students have to complete an assignment. Several e-stopwatches are available online. Help keep students stay on-task by offering several time prompts, such as, “You have 2 minutes remaining” and “You have 30 seconds remaining.”

Limit Class Time for Test Review Limit the use of instructional time for review in preparation for a unit test or final examinations. Instead set aside after-school sessions for test review and make it worthwhile for students to attend by providing additional credit or giving questions during the review session that are similar to those on the test. In some cases, teachers use 1 or 2 weeks at the end of the school year for the final exam review. This can consume a tremendous amount of classroom time. Use prior unit tests as the basis for the final and have students review unit tests for the final exam.

153

154

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

Consider Take-Home Tests and Quizzes Over the school year, unit tests and quizzes can consume up to 2 or 3 weeks of instructional time. Consider, where appropriate, occasionally using open-book tests and/or take-home extended response questions to be completed at home rather than during class time.

Limit Classroom Interruptions Classroom interruptions are often a prime cause of lost instructional time. Classroom interruptions usually take the form of the school’s public address system, phone calls during class, or students entering or being called out of the classroom once the lesson begins. How often have we heard, “Please pardon the interruption, but would Jackie Smith report to the office immediately?” Every classroom interruption subtracts instructional time multiplicatively. After a 30-second interruption, it may take double the time to get students’ attention back on track to the topic being studied. Teachers who experience constant interruptions should monitor daily occurrences and report the frequency to the appropriate school administrator. Unfortunately, time is a limited, nonrenewable resource; there is only so much time available in the school day. Managing time is like managing money—you need to account for it. By developing a time management plan and spending your time wisely, you can generate 3 to 4 weeks of additional instructional time—time that can be used to engage your students in inquiry-based learning. Up until now, the suggestions have been mostly centered on time. We’ll now shift our focus to how the lesson format can influence classroom management.

Avoiding a Lockstep Approach As novice teachers try to establish a manageable classroom environment, they often implement a lockstep approach to teaching. This means the lesson is presented in a way where all the students are expected to progress together as one. With a lockstep approach, the teacher usually provides the step-by-step procedures orally as the students read them from a handout. To the teacher’s way of thinking, this approach communicates a sense of control and sequential orderliness. However, keeping the students on a regimented instruction can lead to unwanted consequences. Consider the teacher who uses a lockstep approach during a whole-class, hands-on activity. Picture, if you can, one student in the class not understanding what’s going on or a second student who is off-task and not paying attention. At this point, the teacher usually stops the lesson to re-explain the procedure to the confused student or reprimand the misbehaving student while the rest of the class sits and bides their time. Amid a class of 25, one student receives the teacher’s attention while the 24 other students wait for the lesson to resume. Consider a lab where Mrs. Hagen’s 9th-grade general chemistry students are investigating the dissolving rate of sugar. For this lab, she informs her students that they will follow a step-by-step procedure in testing how three variables—surface area, water temperature, and stirring—affect the dissolving rate of sugar. Although she is convinced that the lab will provide practice in learning important science process skills, she is unaware of the problems that will surface while trying to keep all the students together on the same pace at the same time.

MANAGING THE INQUIRY-BASED CLASSROOM

To begin the activity, Mrs. Hagen hands out a worksheet for the sugar lab. The sheet lists the question to be investigated, the materials to be used, the procedure to be followed, and includes a blank chart to organize the data. To start the lab, she reads the question to the students: “What factors affect the dissolving rate of sugar? In this lab, we will see how the temperature of the water, whether sugar is a cube or a granular, or whether we stir or don’t stir the solution makes the sugar dissolve faster in water.” Although she doesn’t realize it, she has practically told the students what results to expect from the lab. Mrs. Hagen proceeds to read the procedure, one step at a time, so students can follow along and complete the steps together. Although the process is well-intended, it often results in students becoming bored with the regimented, slow-paced instruction. As a result, many students are ready to move ahead, but forced to wait, they begin to act out. Mrs. Hagen finds herself in a situation where she now has to discipline disruptive students and lose precious instructional time. She ends up telling the class, “We’re not going to move on until everybody is settled down and ready to get back to work.” She has yet to learn that spoon-feeding and coaxing students into compliance has never been an effective management tool. Across the hall, Mr. Bortal is having his chemistry students do the same lab—although his approach is quite different from Mrs. Hagen’s. Mr. Bortal begins the lab by dropping a sugar cube into a beaker of room temperature water and posing the question, “What factors affect the dissolving rate of sugar? In this lab you will choose a variable—the temperature of water, the surface area, or agitation (whether you stir or don’t stir the solution) to test the dissolving rate of sugar. Or you may choose another variable to test besides the ones I suggested. You will design your own investigation and decide what supplies and equipment you will need to carry out your plan. At the end of the investigation, you should be able to report your findings to the class and make a claim based on supportive evidence collected as to the results of your inquiry. Be ready to justify and defend your findings and to offer an explanation as to what’s happening, molecularly, in the situation.” These two approaches are obviously very different. They do point out the extreme disparities you may see in a high school science class—one class very controlling, the other more individualized. Research on the pedagogical practices within urban classrooms suggest that as a result of many curricula-imposed and self-imposed constraints, many urban teachers’ practices emphasize directive, controlling teaching, which Martin Haberman (1991) calls the “pedagogy of poverty.” However, teachers do have a choice. They can either espouse a lockstep approach justified for the management of classroom behavior or facilitate ownership where students have control over their learning through self-paced instruction, which is characteristic of inquiry-based science. Throughout this book, many of the examples provide alternatives for instructional practice. In the end, based on one’s values and beliefs about what constitutes quality teaching and learning, it will always be the individual teacher who decides the direction to take.

Establishing the Right Atmosphere Any successful farmer knows that a healthy crop does not sprout by chance. Before the farmer sows his annual seeds, he or she takes great effort to till and prepare the soil. Then, after the seeds are planted, he applies the right application of fertilizer and, in times of drought, provides irrigation as needed. The process is repeated year after year to ensure the

155

156

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

greatest possible yield. In the end, without any unforeseeable weather or pest problems, a bountiful crop emerges. There is much similarity between a farmer’s field and a teacher’s classroom: both places need proper cultivating and nurturing to be productive environments. These days, academic pressure and stress are often the top predators of student productivity. Anxiety and pressure from classwork consumes many high school adolescents. However, a classroom atmosphere that is emotionally comfortable can contribute to less anxiety and more effective learning. Making classrooms places where students can learn with feelings of composure and confidence is a principal goal. In looking to ease the atmosphere of the physical environment, a small percentage of teachers are turning to ways to improve classroom conditions. Let’s investigate several ways in which teachers can implement ideas to turn a stale classroom into a creative center for learning. 1. Clear the clutter. Clutter is perhaps the most damaging aspect of a classroom. It conveys a sense of disorder and confusion. Make your classroom as clutter­ free as possible. Do not keep books and papers lying around the room. Keep the shelves and storage cabinets as uncluttered as possible. Use plastic bins to store supplies. The bins can be easily taken out from a storage cabinet and returned at the end of an activity. Orderliness is always a chancy suggestion since there are many excellent high school science teachers who say, “I know my room is a mess, but that’s the way I like it. It’s organized chaos. Besides, I can find anything I need in what looks like disorder. I like my room just the way it is.” Nevertheless, for first-year teachers especially, a clutter-free, well-organized looking classroom is a good place to begin when establishing a classroom management system. 2. Natural light is best. The use of natural light can invigorate a classroom by inspiring the development of emotions and thoughts. Natural sunlight is a source of energy. Whenever possible, raise the window shades and let natural light shine in. You may want to supplement natural light with a desktop lamp with a full-spectrum light bulb. They are cost-efficient and eco-friendly. 3. Placement is paramount. The typical science classroom is set up in a lecture-style arrangement consisting of straight rows and columns. Arrange the teacher’s desk so it’s facing the entrance door and has an unobstructed view of the entire classroom. Consider arranging the student desks in groups of threes or fours or in a semicircle of two rows: one inner row and one outer row. Change the seating arrangement periodically to show flexibility, and experiment with different patterns to discover what works best for your classes. Be sure that the desk arrangement does not cause a traffic jam. Open the arrangement as much as possible. Openness promotes clarity and reduces ambiguity. 4. Display nature. Classrooms, especially science classrooms, should be naturefriendly settings. Consider incorporating the natural beauty and tranquility of flowing water in your classroom. Add an aquarium with a filter system that pours into the tank like a waterfall. Flowing water symbolizes peacefulness and serenity. The sound of the water flowing can add a soothing, peaceful background. A tabletop mini-waterfall or fountain can be an excellent alternative to an aquarium. In addition, plants give your classroom a natural, environmental look. Add several plants to beautify the room. In the Chinese culture, the bamboo plant symbolizes longevity as well as good luck. Terraria are another excellent possibility.

MANAGING THE INQUIRY-BASED CLASSROOM

5. Color matters. The color of a room can encourage or discourage certain behaviors. Earth tone colors such as green and yellow express calming, natural emotions. Darker shades, such as red, may have the opposite effect on students. If your walls are painted white, ask if you can change the color to a more natural-looking one. An earth science teacher in Minnesota told me she painted her classroom walls to match the environment. She divided her walls horizontally into thirds. For the lower third she painted the wall tan to represent the earth. She painted the middle third a light green to represent the forest. She then painted the top third pale blue to represent the sky. Finally, she used a large natural sponge to blend a subtle transition in between the levels. She was surprised what a difference the colors made and how much the students enjoyed the room. 6. Music mellows the mind. How do students enter your classroom? Are they loud and boisterous? What would happen if you provided soothing, classical music as they entered the class? Music has the power to calm the mind, body, and soul— especially after students have just navigated the hallway to get from one class to another. Some teachers profess that serene music, especially Baroque, can help increase focus, especially during tests. Classical music is also ideal in introducing a different genre of music to high school students. Ultimately, the success of using any of the suggestions from this section depends upon the style of the teacher. While some teachers prefer an austere classroom, others like to fashion a more decorative environment. No one classroom setting fits all teachers. You need to find what fits your needs and comfort level. Whatever classroom you decide to create, it will be worthwhile to assess and monitor the environment and your management techniques. We will now focus on tools that will assist in assessing and monitoring your inquiry classroom.

Assessing and Monitoring Your Classroom Management Strategies As you practice the strategies and methodologies of inquiry-based teaching, it becomes necessary to take time to assess and monitor your progress. Several instruments available to help you with this process were identified earlier in Chapter 4. We will again highlight the importance of assessment by revisiting the instruments as a means of monitoring classroom management. Marshall, Horton, and White (2009) provide the Electronic Quality of Inquiry Protocol (EQUIP). EQUIP considers several factors that support inquiry-based teaching and learning: time usage, instruction, discourse, assessment, and curriculum. The authors provide rubrics for various levels of advancement (pre-inquiry, developing, proficient, and exemplary). Similarly, Sampson (2004), offers the Science Management Observation Protocol (SMOP). Using a Lykert-type rating scale of 0 (never observed) to 4 (very descriptive), peer observers can assess five different management issues: classroom characteristics and routines, use of time and transitions, collaboration among students, safety, and care in use of materials. Llewellyn (2007) offers two additional assessments: an Inquiry Rubric, which assesses performance for curriculum development, lesson presentation, communication, engagement of students, classroom organization, questioning skills, assessment procedures, and professional development, and an Inquiry Self-Assessment, based on the same indicators as the Inquiry Rubric.

157

158

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

All four instruments provide different and unique lenses for observing and assessing your progress toward creating an inquiry science classroom. Additionally, each serves as a springboard for support group discussions regarding the elements of an exemplary inquiry-based classroom.

Case Study: Investigating Contour Lines Scott Michel is an earth science teacher at Hilton High School in Hilton, New York. His classroom layout is a lecture/lab combination with flattop student desks and separate chairs that allows him flexibility in transitioning from teacher-centered to studentcentered activities within the class period. The classroom has ample shelves and storage for books, materials, and equipment. In any classroom, the layout can contribute to or prevent student disturbances. With multiple computer and supply areas located throughout the room, the layout allows 25 earth science students to move about the room with few incidents of congestion. Mr. Michel also has two wastebaskets and two pencil sharpers located at opposite sides of the room to limit potential predicaments in those areas. The lab tables are uncluttered so students can use them without having to move other items from the tables. Mr. Michel usually has the ceiling lights turned off to allow natural light from the windows to illuminate the room. The natural light provides enough brightness for students to see the image from the LCD projector located in the front of the room and makes the classroom feel more welcoming. Before the bell rings to start the period, Mr. Michel stands at the door greeting students by name as they enter. He often jokes with students by saying how happy he is that they came to class today. He also uses this time to take attendance or hand back assignments from the preceding day’s lesson. At the sound of the bell, Mr. Michel begins the lesson standing behind the demonstration table in the front of the room where he operates the computer, the document projector, and the LCD projector. However, after the first slide is up, he makes a conscious effort to move out from behind the table and walk about the room during his presentation, speaking from all corners of the room. This allows him to monitor student engagement and keep all students ontask (even the ones who sit in the back of the room to avoid being called upon). Although the arrangement of desks changes depending on the assignment, today the desks are arranged in groups of threes. Depending on the nature of the lesson, students could be arranged in traditional rows and columns, in groups of twos or fours, or even in a two-row semicircle. The 60-minute lesson is divided into three parts, each lasting about 20 minutes. The three parts are loosely based on the 5E Learning Cycle and include an introduction/ engagement phase, a teacher-led explanation phase, and the application phase. With high school attention spans lasting somewhere between 15 and 20 minutes, Mr. Michel is conscious of changing the mode of instruction several times throughout the lesson. His minilectures usually last no more than 20 minutes. This keeps the lesson moving along and sustains on-task behaviors. On this occasion, Mr. Michel plans the lesson around student engagement and opportunities for choice. Although his management style seems relaxed, it is predicated of careful preparation that often is a deterrent to negative classroom behaviors. In other words, effective student engagement minimizes inappropriate classroom behaviors. The lesson is also purposely designed to shift the ownership of the assignment from the teacher to the students. The scaffolding management style of guided, semi-guided, and independent

MANAGING THE INQUIRY-BASED CLASSROOM

learning you are now going to read about works well—especially when students are being introduced to inquiry- and argument-based learning. The introduction starts with “the question of the day.” Mr. Michel poses the question and also has it written on a sentence strip. By posting the question on the board, the teacher is reminding himself to reserve time at the end of the period to review the essential question. Mr. Michel knows that if he does not return to the question at the end of the lesson, most students will not pay any attention to it at the beginning of the class. This way the question acts as both a “liftoff” and a “landing” to the day’s lesson. Today’s lesson focuses on the function of contour lines (or isolines) in interpreting weather, topographic, and earthquake maps. For the initial engagement exercise, students are given a map with scattered elevations. The task involves drawing contour lines for various elevations (see Figure 8.3). Starting on the right side of the map, Mr. Michel provides guided instruction where the students label the contour lines for 45 and then 40 feet. The students now know that each line will represent a 5-foot change in elevation. The teacher then asks, “Does the map go to 50 feet?” Julius answers, “No.” The teacher responds, “How do you know?” asking Julius to provide a more detailed explanation for his answer. Next, moving down in elevation, the students are told to draw a contour line for the 35-foot elevation. After circling the 35-foot elevation at the upper right of the page, Mr. Michel instructs them to “sketch a line between the points representing the 35-foot interval by estimating where 35 feet would be between the elevation points.”

Figure 8.3  

45

45

45

45

45

45

40 41

40

38

37

34

39 32

27

N

39 32

34

35 30

James River

26

27 20

26

31

17 11

16

25

16

15 12

11 5

19

8

3

7 6

3 0

19

15

10

5

8

Great Island Bay 4

0 Scale: 1 inch = 500 feet

159

160

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

For the semi-guided phase of the lesson, Mr. Michel tells the students to circle the 30-foot elevation and estimate where 30-foot elevation would be between the points on the map. After a quick check, students move on to complete the 25-, 20-, 15-, 10-, and 5-foot intervals. For the independent phase, students are fully responsible for completing the task. They now connect the right-hand contour lines with the elevations on the left hand side. Mr. Michel says, “You have two minutes to draw the contour lines for the left side of the map and connect them across James River to the lines on the right-hand side.” The teacher starts an online stopwatch at www.online-stopwatch.com and projects the clock on the screen. By giving students a specific time limit to complete the task, the teacher sets learning expectations and manages the instructional time efficiently. This way, students get right to work and monitor their own time. At the end of the specified time, Mr. Michel is sure to avoid asking, “Who needs more time?” In doing so, he negates the time expectation and communicates to students that the time limit really doesn’t matter. While the students are working independently, Mr. Michel walks around the classroom to determine how well each student is doing with the task and answers any question the groups may have. In speaking to small groups, the teacher is mindful of making level eye contact when talking with the students. The level eye contact body language suggests a concerned and attentive demeanor. It also diminishes the authoritarian status of the teacher. There are times, such as in disciplinary situations, when Mr. Michel wants to have his head above a student’s but not while responding to questions about a task. Mr. Michel now instructs them to share their completed map with a partner. This strategy, typically known as “Think-Pair-Share,” fosters critical thinking and engages all the students in collaboration and communicating their ideas to others. Mr. Michel sees two students going to the windows in back of the room. They place their papers one over the other and hold them up to the incoming light. They can now see through both sheets of paper and can compare one set of contour lines to another. The two sets are very similar. After a minute, Mr. Michel asks for a volunteer to come up to the front of the room and fill in the contour lines for the left hand side. While the volunteer is filling out the contour lines, Mr. Michel purposely walks to the back of the room. This way the seated students can give their full attention to the volunteer. The casual move focuses the classes’ attention from the teacher to the student volunteer. After the volunteer returns to her seat, Deborah, another student asks, “Does the elevation of Great Island Bay have to be at 0?” Mr. Michel responds from the back of the room, “What do you think? Are all lakes at sea level or at a 0 elevation?” Deborah answers, “No, I don’t think so.” The teacher responds with the following question. “How do you know? Give us some evidence for your answer.” Deborah then explains that some lakes are in mountain ranges way above sea level. She appears quite confident in her reply. Mr. Michel now returns to the front of the class as the second part of the lesson involves a teacher-led discussion on the Mercalli Scale. While he continues his instruction, Mr. Michel asks a student to pass out a scale showing the intensity levels of earthquakes and summarizes the intensity number and damage effects. This keeps the flow of his mini-lecture moving as he cites several recent earthquakes and attaches an intensity number to each of the examples given. Next, students apply their understanding of the Mercalli Scale. Mr. Michel shows earthquake pictures from the Web and videos from YouTube taken during various famous earthquakes. The students then act as seismologists to estimate the intensity level from I to XII of the Mercalli scale for each example shown (Mercalli Intensity Scale ratings are indicated in Roman numerals). To foster argumentation in the class, the students have to make judgments as to the rating for each earthquake shown and provide evidence from

MANAGING THE INQUIRY-BASED CLASSROOM

Figure 8.4  

45

45

45

45

45

45

40 40

41 38

32

37 26

31

27

30

James River

17 16

25

39 32

34

34

39

26

27 16

11

12 5

19

8

3

35

20 15

11

N

7 6

3 0

19

15

10

5

4

8

Great Island Bay

0 Scale: 1 inch = 500 feet

the picture or video to substantiate their claims. Other students are encouraged to agree or disagree with the presenter’s conclusions and challenge the assumptions made. For example, Mr. Michel uses the United States Geological Survey Web site (www.USGS.gov) to show damage from the January 12, 2010, earthquake located 15 miles WSW of Portau-Prince in Haiti. The teacher asks, “Who has a scale reading of VIII for this earthquake? Who has a scale reading of VII? Of VI? What evidence of damage do you see in the video to substantiate your rating?” At the end of the discussion students want to know what the actual rating for the earthquake was. Mr. Michel is hesitant in giving an answer. He encourages students to trust their rating claims and the evidence they used to substantiate their rating. But as typical 9th graders, they want to know the answer. After the question is asked, Jeremy walks over to the computer and enters Haiti on the USGS Web site. He announces to the class, “The intensity rating for Haiti was VII.” One student in the class is originally from Haiti. Makayla tells a story of relatives still living in Port-au-Prince amid the horror and aftermath of the quake. Her story goes on for over 10 minutes; it provokes an awakening in the other students as to the ongoing suffering and damage in the area. Although the unexpected comments take the class a bit off schedule, Mr. Michel knows that building relationships is an essential aspect of a learner-centered environment. Instead of cutting the student off, he welcomes her remarks and knows that he can make up the time elsewhere. For now, the “voice” of the student needed to be heard, and her story trumps his.

161

162

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

As a second example, Mr. Michel shows a video of the March 11, 2011, earthquake located 230 miles NE of Tokyo, Japan, with an intensity level of IX. Again, the students estimate the intensity level based on the amount of destruction and share their individual appraisals and evidence with a partner. As students observe the destruction between the Haiti and Japan earthquakes, Tyler notices how the damage in Haiti seemed more extensive than in Japan—even though Japan’s scale rating was much higher. Mr. Michel prompts students to think about the earthquake precautions taken in the buildings between the two countries. The students infer that since Japan sits on an earthquake zone, recently constructed buildings are designed to better withstand earthquakes. At the application level, working in groups of threes, students now use classroom computers to choose an earthquake that occurred locally, nationally, or worldwide. Once they choose an earthquake, they begin work on their assignment to locate the epicenter of the quake on a map and draw contour lines as to damage caused to surrounding areas emanating from the epicenter. Since Hilton is one of a few area high schools where students are allowed (and encouraged) to use their iPhones in class to download information for instructional use, students eagerly take out their cell phones to begin the assignment. One group remembered a recent earthquake in Ontario, Canada, that was felt in Hilton, New York. The students go online to research the earthquake on the USGS Web site and find out that the earthquake happened on June 23, 2010, with the epicenter located 35 miles NNE of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. It had a recorded intensity level of V. They then go online to archived issues of the local paper to read articles about local reactions to the earthquake. They read about a woman in the area who said, “Hanging lamps swayed from the ceiling.” Another eyewitness said, “I was in my car at a red light and the car seemed to rock back and forth.” From these statements, the students identify the intensity rating as level IV. Then, using a mechanical compass, they draw a circle with the epicenter of the quake at the center of the circle and labeled all the points, including Hilton, on the circumference circle as level IV. Using the distance from the epicenter to the first circle, they estimate where the next least intensity level would be and draw another circle to indicate level III. They do the same for levels II and I. With 3 minutes remaining in the period, Mr. Michel announces that it’s time for students to get back to their seats so he can review with them the essential question. The lesson ends with Mr. Michel restating the essential question and choosing a student to answer. He uses the essential question as a wrap-up exercise and to determine the degree to which students understood the lesson. In this case, the essential question serves as a formative assessment tool. If students demonstrate difficulty in answering the essential question, Mr. Michel knows he needs to spend additional time during the next class to revisit the content and present it in a different manner. As a closure to the lesson, Mr. Michel provides a brief overview of tomorrow’s lesson. This provides a seamless transition from one lesson to another. As the students leave the room for their next class, Brianna and Marisa want to take today’s assignment even further by designing a model building that could withstand a large earthquake. They ask Mr. Michel if they can come in during their lunchtime and search the Internet for construction ideas. He smiles and welcomes their idea.

Questions for Reflection and Discussion 1. The case study you just read focuses on the management of the physical space as well as the management of the instructional format of the lesson. Discuss how both

MANAGING THE INQUIRY-BASED CLASSROOM

of these aspects are important to inquiry-based teachers. What specific management strategies can you identify from the case study? 2. Design a lesson that shifts the ownership from the teacher to the student. Choose a lesson you recently taught and modify the sequence to include a guided, a semiguided, and an independent section to the lesson. 3. Using your own classroom dimensions, design several seating arrangements where students are sitting in straight rows and columns, arranged in groups of twos, in groups of fours, and in a horse shoe or semicircle formation. What are the advantages and disadvantages to each arrangement? When would it be appropriate to use each of the layouts? 4. Teachers often post class rules in the room. These rules are usually written in terms of negative behaviors and what not to do—such as “Don’t do this” or “Don’t do that.” Sometimes classroom rules are written as reactive rules, meaning, “If you do this, you’ll receive a stated punishment.” Are there damaging effects to reactive rules? Do reactive rules really prevent misbehavior? Write five simple, basic classroom rules that are oriented toward building positive teacher-student and studentstudent relationships as well as a creative learning environment, five rules that make students feel safe and secure, or five rules that emphasize a sense of belonging and acceptance. Review the habits of mind listed in Chapter 1. Consider writing rules for responsibility, motivation, self-control, persistence, commitment, and collaboration. Share your rules with a colleague and discuss the benefits of having students create their own classroom rules. Several rules may include the following: •• •• •• ••

Strive to improve your performance each day. Use your time in class effectively. Enjoy working in science. Be supportive and respectful of others’ efforts.

5. What is the advantage of having students work in small groups? When is group work not appropriate? What criteria should you consider when assigning students to work in a small group? When should students be allowed to choose their own group members? In a heterogeneous class setting, how would you assign students with special or language needs to a group? 6. Yolanda is a first-year teacher at an inner-city high school. Many of the hands-on science activities she plans go amiss. She openly complains that several of the students in her class are loud and disruptive. In the teachers’ room, Yolanda voices her frustration about these unmanageable students by saying, “They just don’t want to learn anything.” How does shifting the blame to the students prevent Yolanda from being proactive and taking constructive actions toward resolving the problem she faces? What suggestions can you offer to Yolanda?

163

9 Developing Effective Questioning Skills

B

ecause questions are an elemental aspect of inquiry and argumentation, this chapter is one of the most important sections of the book. In the midst of inquiry and argumentation, questions provide the springboard for scientific investigations, discussions, and debates. In many ways, questions are the drivers that transport students from what they initially know to what you want them to know, whereas inquiries are the vehicles that seek out their best ideas and steer them on the expressway to knowledge. Therefore, honing your ability to ask probing and thought-provoking questions is a necessary prerequisite to becoming an effective inquiry-based science teacher. According to the National Research Council (2012), Asking questions is essential to developing scientific habits of mind. Even for individuals who do not become scientists or engineers, the ability to ask welldefined questions is an important component of science literacy, helping to make them critical consumers of scientific knowledge. (p. 54) Thus, by the end of grade 12, students should be able to •• formulate and refine questions that can be answered empirically in a science classroom; •• ask probing questions that seek to identify the premises of an argument, request further elaboration, refine a research question, or challenge the interpretation of a data set; and •• note features, patterns, or contradictions in observations and ask questions about them. (NRC, 2012)

164

To achieve these objectives both teachers and students will need to become increasingly skillful in asking and answering thoughtful questions. During a session of my graduate-level science-methods course, Lauren, a high school biology teacher, asked, “Students in my biology classes seldom ask good questions. How

DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE QUESTIONING SKILLS

can I get them to ask better questions?” That single question generated enormous interest, with many others in the class voicing the same concern about their students. After further discussion, Lauren willingly admitted that she frequently first asks a student a question to which she has a desired answer in mind. Then, after the student gives a response, Lauren follows up the response with a comment about the student’s answer. This questioning format is often referred to as IRE, standing for Initiation, Response, and Evaluation. And although this pattern of questioning is typically observed in many high school science classes and can be useful when reviewing for tests, it usually does not foster argumentation or critical-reasoning skills (Michaels, Shouse, & Schweingruber, 2008). Studies indicate that the best strategy for increasing students’ questioning abilities is for teachers to model effective questioning techniques themselves. Thus, the purpose of this chapter is to assist preservice and practicing science teachers in developing excellent questioning skills and strategies. In addition, it stimulates you to question your own teaching methodologies and consider alternative methods of engaging students through questioning.

The Purpose of Questions How many questions do you think most high school science teachers ask during a 45-minute period? 20? 30? 40? Several studies estimate that teachers ask about 75 questions during a typical lecture/discussion period. Similarly, how many questions do you think most high school students ask during the same 45-minute period? 20? More than 20? Well, depending on the nature of the class and the topic of the lesson, some studies estimate that on average students ask less than 10 questions a class period: meaning that most of the questions posed are generated by the teacher. In inquiry-based lessons, teachers try to turn that statistic around by having students ask as many questions as they do. Since we already are cognizant that questions are a fundamental aspect of inquiry and argumentation, let’s consider the varied uses of questions. Llewellyn (2007) states the purposes of questions in high school science classrooms are to •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••

initiate, engage, or provoke a lesson, discussion, or investigation; provide direction to a lesson, discussion, or investigation; assess students’ prior knowledge; uncover students’ naïve conceptions; stimulate higher-level, critical-thinking skills; prompt students to a particular answer or conclusion; focus, clarify, or guide an argument; have students justify a position; challenge students’ responses; keep students on-task; review for an upcoming assessment; assess student progress; and reflect on and review material at the end of a lesson.

In the previous chapter, you read how an essential question can initiate a lesson or discussion. Now, let’s move on to two categories of questions: expository and exploratory questions. In this case, expository questions are verbal queries, whereas exploratory questions are more investigative-oriented questions.

165

166

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

Bloom’s Taxonomy Before we get into the nitty-gritty of expository questions, let’s first review an organization for categorizing the level of various questions—Bloom’s Taxonomy. Since many readers are probably familiar with Bloom’s Taxonomy, we won’t spend a lot of time on the topic, but provided below is a brief summary of the six levels of cognitive domains and guidance on how to apply them to the art of asking and writing questions. First of all, it’s important to note that the taxonomy, when introduced by Benjamin Bloom in 1956, was originally intended for writing educational objectives. But since it had seemingly little effect on curricula, educators subsequently used the levels for evaluation and assessment: thus applying the taxonomy as a means to codify a hierarchy of thinking skills for test items. Bloom’s taxonomy system is divided into six levels or categories: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. At the knowledge level, students remember and recall terminology and information previously learned in class to give factual answers that require them to use basic cognitive thinking skills such as define, state, list, or match. At the comprehension level, students make use of the information learned to reword or explain its meaning. Cognitive verbs in this level have students classify, describe, explain, generalize, or summarize. At the application level, students use information previously learned and apply it to new situations or solve simple problems. Several cognitive verbs in this level have students construct, develop, predict, produce, or transfer. In general, the lower/middle level domains (knowledge, comprehension, and application) include information-seeking questions, whereas the next three middle-/ higher-level domains (analysis, synthesis, and evaluation) include information-processing questions. At the analysis level, students break down information into its component parts to draw conclusions and inferences or to find evidence to support their assumptions and generalizations. The cognitive thinking skills at this level have students differentiate, prioritize, compare and contrast, or find patterns and relationships. At the synthesis level, students make use of individual pieces of the information previously learned to produce a whole new entity. Cognitive verbs at this level have students adapt, combine, compose, reconstruct, or invent. Finally, at the evaluation level, students make judgments as to the value of the information learned and communicate their personal opinions on the topic. Several cognitive verbs at this level have students appraise, argue, critique, defend, justify, or support. The chart below gives an overview of the different domains, the key science-related process verbs associated with those domains, and sample questions as examples for each domain.

Low and Mid-Level Questions Knowledge/Recall

Key Science-Related Verbs

Examples

Copy, define, identify, label, list, match, memorize, name, recall, record, select, show, state, tell

•• •• •• ••

What is . . . ? Where is . . . ? What answer did you get? Tell me what happened.

DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE QUESTIONING SKILLS

Low and Mid-Level Questions

Key Science-Related Verbs

Examples

Comprehension

Categorize, clarify, classify, compare, conclude, contrast, demonstrate, describe, discuss, distinguish, estimate, explain, generalize, group, illustrate, infer, interpret, order, outline, predict, relate, rephrase, report, restate, review, show, summarize, translate

•• •• •• •• ••

Application

Apply, calculate, choose, compute, construct, determine, develop, extend, elaborate, identify, illustrate, modify, model, organize, prepare, plan, select, solve, transfer, use

•• •• •• ••

Key Science-Related Verbs

Examples

Analysis

Analyze, arrange, categorize, classify, compare, contrast, conclude, design, detect, diagram, differentiate, discover, distinguish, discriminate, examine, experiment, hypothesize, infer, inspect, interpret, investigate, survey, test

•• What evidence supports your claim? •• What conclusion can you draw? •• How reliable is your data? •• What are the parts of . . . ? •• What evidence do you have to support . . . ? •• How would you interpret the data you collected? •• What conclusions can you draw from the data? •• How is ____ like _____? •• How does _____ affect _____? •• How is ____ dependent upon _____?

Synthesis

Adapt, build, collaborate, combine, compile, compose, conclude, construct, create, deduct, design, develop, devise, elaborate, estimate, formulate, generalize, imagine, improve, invent, modify, plan, predict, propose, solve, speculate, theorize, wonder

•• How come . . . ? •• How would you summarize . . . ? •• What would happen if . . . ? •• How could you test another variable? •• Can you develop an explanation from your results? •• Can you construct a model to support your explanation?

Mid- and High-Level Questions

Why does that matter? How would you compare . . . ? What’s the main idea . . . ? What can you say about . . . ? What do you mean by that?

What if . . . ? What would happen if . . . ? How come . . . ? Why does that apply to this situation? •• What does that remind you of? •• What examples can you give? •• How would you classify . . . ?

(Continued)

167

168

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

(Continued) Mid- and High-Level Questions Evaluation

Key Science-Related Verbs

Examples

Appraise, argue, assess, conclude, convince, decide, deduce, defend, evaluate, infer, interpret, judge, justify, persuade, rate, rank, recommend, revise, test, value, validate

•• How do you feel about . . . ? •• How can you justify your answer? •• What made you think that? •• Why do you think your assumption/conclusion/claim is correct? •• What supporting evidence do you have to substantiate your assumption/claim? •• If you had to do the investigation over again, how would you do it differently? •• How would you rate your performance?

From this brief description, you can see that questions (whether they are presented orally in a discussion or written on a unit test) can promote a particular level of cognitive thinking and response. Just by comparing the thinking skills associated with the knowledge level versus the evaluation level, you can appreciate how scientific inquiry and argumentation promote higher and more critical thinking skills. If this is true, why do high school science teachers ask so many knowledge/recall questions during a lesson? Many teachers may respond by saying, “I know I should ask more critical thinking questions BUT . . . ,” “Knowledge and recall domain questions are easier to ask.” “There’s a lot of content students have to remember.” “Students need to know facts and terminology for upcoming tests.” “Knowledge and recall questions are easier to correct.” “I have a limited amount of classroom time. I need to keep the lesson moving. I need short, to-the-point answers from students.” “Short-answer questions help control the class and focus the discussion.” Given the statements above, which ones do you think are credible and which ones are not? Select the statements you agree with and the ones you do not. For each one you do not agree with, write a counterstatement. You may choose to phrase your rebuttals by using the following “they say/I say” template: I know that some teachers say _________________________ (their claim); however, I think _________________________ (my claim) because _______________________ (my evidence and reasoning). Share your responses with a partner and justify your counterclaims.

DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE QUESTIONING SKILLS

Readers should note that in 2002, David Krathwohl offered an updated revision to Bloom’s Taxonomy using the following categories: Remembering, Understanding, Applying, Analyzing, Evaluating, and Creating. And in 2007, Robert Marzano and John Kendall proposed another classification based on the following categories: Retrieval, Comprehension, Analysis, Knowledge Utilization, Metacognition, and Self-System Thinking. Because of the familiarity most educators have with Bloom’s original taxonomy, that classification was used as the basis of this book.

Expository Questions The domain of the questions can be used to your advantage once you distinguish between the function of lower, more basic-thinking levels to upper, more critical-thinking levels. Expository questions based on knowledge, comprehension, and application levels are best for purposes of recitation, that is, questions that foster the following: •• •• •• •• •• ••

Short-answer responses for understanding of details Drill and practice Reaffirmation of the teacher’s authority and control Formative assessment of lower-level thinking skills Retention-based information Review for a test

Expository questions based on analysis, synthesis, and evaluation levels are best for purposes of discussion, that is, questions that foster the following: •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••

Long-answer responses with follow-up elaborations The opportunity to “think out loud” Sharing of diverse points of view Students to clarify their understandings The providing of supporting evidence to assumptions and claims made The making of connections of content to new situations Transfer-based information Students to reflect on their own beliefs and understandings

What’s important to remember is that each level or domain has its own distinct purpose. Ultimately, a well-planned lesson contains an array of preplanned questions that are selected and used for a particular situation or to match the need of a student’s specific learning style.

Quality Questions Model Quality Thinking Samantha, an 11th-grade physics teacher, equates classroom questioning to “fishing” for the correct answer. Sam suggests, “You need an interesting and relevant ‘worm’ at the end of the hook to lure students into biting.” Do you agree with Samantha’s assertion? Samantha claims she tries to employ this philosophy in her questioning skills by purposely focusing on specific content and critical-thought processes that are communicated clearly and concisely to elicit student interpretations of what the question is asking as well as their understanding of the content involved in answering the question. When it

169

170

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

appears to Sam that a student may not understand the question being asked, she’ll say, “Tell me what you think the question is asking.” In this way, the teacher tries to “get inside the head” of the student to unravel any misconceptions or misunderstandings getting in the way of answering the question. The strategy also allows her to shift from “guess what I’m thinking” type questions toward “what is the student thinking” type questions. This simple, unassuming assertion shifts the custody of the question from the teacher to the student—where it rightly belongs.

Questioning Techniques We are now beginning to better understand why teachers need to master the art and science of asking quality questions when creating a learner-centered classroom. In elementary school, children seem to ask an infinite number of questions. As they reach high school, however, and peer relationships get a foothold in their life, their reluctance to ask questions in class often increases. During high school, students tend to become more passive and are more accustomed to occasionally providing token answers to questions posed by the teacher. This can significantly interfere with the students’ ability to formulate questions and conduct self-directed inquiries. Transitioning reluctant high school science students into the position of formulating their own questions can take work. Therefore, posing good questions is central to a teacher’s instructional repertoire, especially in an inquiry-based classroom. The manner in which a question is posed and positioned is equally important as the question itself. Therefore, teachers with good questioning skills enhance the inquiry process and develop more opportunities for student-centered, selfdirected learning. The following 16 tips are tried-and-true suggestions useful in developing a culture for questioning. Rather than implementing all 16 at once, gradually build your repertoire by choosing two or three strategies a week to try. Tip 1: Avoid “chorus” questions. Chorus or group response questions are those questions the teacher asks to which anyone can shout out an answer. When teachers ask indirect chorus questions for anyone and everyone to answer, they often get inappropriate answers. Suppose an earth science teacher asks the question, “What type of rock is limestone?” The students respond, “Sedimentary.” Did all the students really answer correctly? Did some students quietly or to themselves answer, “Metamorphic”? The teacher doesn’t know. It is nearly impossible to determine, through a chorus or class response, how many students actually know the answer to the question. Other students may answer correctly when they hear the correct answer from the class. As an alternative to chorus questions, pose questions to an individual student, not the entire class. Similarly, avoid asking questions that are directed to everyone in the class, such as, “Is everyone finished?” or “Does everyone understand?” Instead, have students respond with a nonverbal behavior, such as, “Raise your hand if you are not finished” or “Raise your hand if you need more time.” Asking for a nonverbal behavior for recognition decreases opportunities for students to shout out and maintains a quieter classroom environment. The video from Saturday Night Live referenced in the Questions for Reflection and Discussion section at the end of this chapter offers a light-hearted look at a teacher’s ineffective questioning skills. Tip 2: Think about when to use the student’s name when posing a direct question. Teachers can place the student’s name either before or after the question. Each has its own specific purpose. By placing the student’s name before the question, as in, “Josh, explain the atomic

DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE QUESTIONING SKILLS

exchange in a double replacement reaction,” all other students may “shut down” as soon as they know that Josh, not they, must answer the question. This immediately takes the rest of the class “off the hook.” Another option is to pose the question, follow it with a pause of 3 to 5 seconds, and then state the name of the student you wish to call on. During that brief amount of time, all students have to think of the answer because they don’t know who is going to be called on. The brief pause invites all students to actively think about an answer, rather than the first student to raise his or her hand. By placing the student’s name at the end of the question, the teacher keeps all the students “on the hook” a little longer. Pausing also gives students a chance to understand the question, since not all students grasp the essence of a question immediately or at the same time. Sometimes teachers use questions as a disciplinary technique. If Josh is daydreaming or not paying attention in class, providing the question first and then adding Josh’s name at the end of the question only serves to embarrass Josh because he has no warning a question is coming his way. Because his name doesn’t precede the question, the teacher risks further alienating him from the class discussion. That means effective teachers do not use questions as a form of discipline. Questions should serve instructional roles, not punitive purposes. An alternative to getting Josh engaged in the class’s discussion is to first get Josh’s attention, ask him a question that you are sure he can answer, and then follow up the answer with positive reinforcement. “Josh, here’s a question for you. Are you ready? Which of the following reactions represent a single replacement reaction?” After Josh’s response, the teacher says, “Excellent, good job!” This same strategy may also be useful when getting non-volunteers to answer questions. Again, precede a question with the student’s name and then pose it. Over time, the non-volunteer students will begin to feel more comfortable in answering questions, especially when they receive the teacher’s praise. Tip 3: As we saw in Samantha’s case, effective teachers avoid “guess what I’m thinking of” type questions. When doing so, the teacher poses a question with a particular desired response in mind. When this happens and the teacher does not get the answer he or she is looking for, the teacher may, through facial expressions or body language, indicate a wrong answer and call on another student until the correct answer is given. All the answers offered by the students may make sense from the standpoint of the students who provide the responses; however, they just aren’t the responses the teacher was fishing for. Teachers should not ignore wrong answers. Most often when a student gives a wrong answer, it points to a misconception the student may have. Good inquiry teachers are just as concerned with wrong answers as they are with right answers. Tip 4: Avoid repeating student answers. When a teacher poses a question and a student provides a correct response, what happens next? Usually the teacher (a) responds by saying, “Okay,” (b) says nothing and goes on to another student, (c) provides positive feedback for a correct response, or (d) repeats the student’s answer. Observe any high school classroom, and far too often you will hear the teacher repeating the answer a student gives. Some teachers say they do it out of habit, while others say that students talk so softly that the rest of the class can’t hear them. In either case, by repeating students’ answers, teachers reinforce the notion that students do not have to speak up because the teachers will always repeat, in a louder voice, what they said. In this situation, the teacher is the conduit of the conversation. All the conversation goes “through” the teacher. Repeating student answers also communicates to the class that the students do not have to listen to other students’ responses, just what the teacher says. In creating a classroom culture of inquiry, everybody’s responses are important and should be heard. When the

171

172

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

teacher repeats the student’s answer, he or she, in a sense, is communicating to the class that “I will call on a student, the student will tell me the answer, and then I’ll tell the rest of the class what the student said.” Consider this as an alternative. Teacher:

“What are the three types of rock? [Pause] Gino?”

Gino:

[Speaking softly] “Sedimentary, metamorphic, and igneous.”

Teacher:

[Pointing to a student across the room] “Michael, did you hear that answer?”

Michael: “No.” Teacher:

[Allowing a pause]

Gino:

[Speaking louder this time so Michael can hear him] “Sedimentary, metamorphic, and igneous.”

Teacher:

[Giving a thumbs-up sign] “Correct. That’s great!”

By doing this, the teacher is prompting Gino to speak up and communicate to the entire class, not just the teacher. The pause that the teacher provides is a nonthreatening prompt for Gino to speak up so everyone can hear him. With enough practice and consistent use, the voices of the students will rise so they will respect each other’s contributions, thus creating a community of learners. Tip 5: Apportion questions equally and equitably by gender. Unknowingly, both male and female teachers often tend to pose more questions and take more responses to their questions from males than females in high school science classes. Also be aware that males are more likely to shout out an answer, thus receiving the teacher’s attention. The teacher can also pose questions by gender to keep more students engaged by saying, “I’m going to ask one of the boys a question and then follow it up with a question to one of the girls.” In this case, all the students are listening to the question in anticipation of being called on to answer it or the follow-up question. Again, remember to use the pause strategy between the question and the student’s name. This allows for “wait-time,” which will be presented later in the chapter. Tip 6: Move about the classroom when asking questions. A teacher’s position in a room can have a profound effect on participation in answering questions. When a teacher positions himself or herself in the front of the class, the tendency is to acknowledge students in the immediate area, in this case, the front of the class. A teacher can enhance his questioning skills by walking about the room during a discussion-based lesson and consciously calling on students across the room. Try calling on a student out of your direct line of sight and encourage the student to answer and make eye contact with the other students in the class, not you. This helps students respond to each other rather than directly to the teacher, encouraging the development of a community of learners. Tip 7: Avoid rhetorical questions where students admit to themselves that they do not understand a particular concept. Questions that fall under this category usually include the following: •• Does everyone understand that? •• Who doesn’t understand what I just said? •• Isn’t that right?

DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE QUESTIONING SKILLS

•• Who didn’t get that down? •• Who doesn’t get it? Tip 8: Know when to answer a student’s question. What is the first thing you think of when a student asks a question? Giving an answer? Before answering the question for the student, the teacher should think, “Does the student have enough background information to answer his own question?” If you think the answer is “yes,” consider posing prompts back to the student to assist him in answering his own question. By doing this, you encourage students to think critically and for themselves. Learning to answer your own questions is an essential aspect of inquiry-based classrooms. Often, the teacher can turn the question back to the student or to the entire class by asking, “What do you think?” When the teacher continuously serves as the source for all answers, the opportunity for whole-class critical thinking can be lost. If you decide, however, that the student does not have the appropriate background information to answer the question, providing prompts and rephrasing may further frustrate both the student and the teacher. In this case, it may be more reasonable to provide the student with an answer. Tip 9: Realize not all questions that teachers pose result in immediate answers. There are times when a student may have the background knowledge for a concept but just doesn’t understand the question being asked. Frequently, the tendency for the teacher is to repeat the question as originally stated or ask the same question to another student. Neither of these options models good questioning strategies. When a student cannot answer a question, first consider rephrasing it. The question may make sense to the sender (the teacher) but not to the receiver (the student). Second, consider asking another student to rephrase the question to the class. It might be that the manner in which the teacher asks the question does not make sense to the students. Sometimes students are great at “translating” an adult’s question into a form that adolescents can understand. Third, don’t be too quick to let a student off the hook by calling on someone else. Continue to rephrase the question or provide prompts to help the student answer the question. If the teacher goes on to another student, he or she communicates to the class that students can avoid answering just by claiming “I don’t know.” Tip 10: Use wait-time techniques. Following up on Tip 9, a strategy developed by Mary Budd Rowe at the University of Florida, is a constructivist approach to questioning. From her research, Rowe (1974, 1987) argues that most teachers wait less than .5 seconds between the end of the question and identifying the person chosen to respond and less than .5 seconds after the student’s response before commenting or going on. She claims that students need time to process their thoughts and replies to a question before responding, as well as needing time to complete their thoughts and replies while speaking. From this conjecture, Rowe devised wait-time 1 and wait-time 2 strategies. She suggests teachers pose a question and wait a full 3 seconds before calling on a student. This spell (called wait-time 1) allows all students to make sense of the question and formulate an appropriate response. Next, Rowe suggests teachers again pause 3 seconds after the student’s response (called wait-time 2) and before making any additional comments. Her research shows that by providing students “think-time” they 1. give longer answers, 2. provide more details and supporting evidence to their answers and claims, 3. ask more questions,

173

174

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

4. respond less with “I don’t know,” 5. engage more in active participation, and 6. demonstrate more confidence in their answers. If you are trying to implement wait-time in your classroom and find it hard to remember “the wait,” tape a 3 by 5 card on the back wall of the room with a big “3” written on it. This will act as a reminder. Tip 11: Don’t interrupt a student’s answer in the middle of the response. Too often, a teacher poses a question that a student begins to answer correctly, and realizing the answer is correct, the teacher interrupts the student in the middle of his or her answer to provide further elaboration of the response. Over time, this communicates to students that their opinions are not as important as the teacher’s. When a student provides an answer to a question, be patient and wait until she completes her response. Doing this will encourage the student to give a complete, thoughtful response and encourage higher-order thinking skills at the analysis and synthesis levels. Tip 12: Don’t ignore wrong answers. Because the answers that students give are based on their prior knowledge (and naive conceptions), be interested in their wrong answers as well as their right ones. Wrong answers are an “open door” to understanding student misconceptions. Too often, we pass over wrong answers and move on to another student until we get the correct answer we’re looking for. Listen for “red flags” in student answers and focus follow-up questions to help correct the misunderstanding. Tip 13: Follow up a student’s response by asking for supporting details. After posing a question and receiving a correct response, what do you do next? The teacher has several alternatives. She could go on to ask another student another question. She could ask the first student to elaborate on the answer with additional supporting details. She could follow up the student answer with the question, “Why do you think that?” Or she could ask a second student to respond to the first student’s answer. Depending on the situation, any of these alternatives may be appropriate. In creating a classroom culture of inquiry, consider the importance of inter-student communication where pupils react and respond to others’ answers. This encourages everyone to be active listeners and respect other participants’ points of view. Tip 14: Prepare questions in advance. It’s suggested that as many as 75% to 80% of questions asked in high school science lectures are at the knowledge/recall level. To avoid all lower-domain questioning and stimulate critical thinking, plan, in advance, five to ten discussion questions that require higher-level thinking skills (application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation) to guide the conversation to higher levels of cognition. Ten carefully planned questions that require critical-level thinking are better than 50 spontaneous random questions. Effectively planned questions act as “cognitive hooks” to scaffold student learning to deeper understandings and increased achievement. By choosing varying levels of questions, the teacher prompts the classroom discussion to challenge students’ thinking. Consider the following questions for example: •• What is the phenotypic proportion of offspring for a cross AABB × AaBb? (application)

DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE QUESTIONING SKILLS

•• What is the relationship in a pond community between the food supply and the population size? (analysis) •• Given the data collected, how do you determine if your hypothesis is valid? (synthesis) •• Does the evidence collected during your investigation substantiate your previous assumptions and concluding claims? If not, why not? (evaluation) Tip 15: Use alternative response strategies. As an alternative to typical teacher-student responses, consider using a “pair and share” technique that involves everyone in answering. After the teacher poses a question, have each student write his or her answer down on paper. Then have students pair with a partner and share answers. Tell students to look for similarities and differences in their answers. Choose several pairs to share their responses with the entire class. Tip 16: Consider using nonfiction science articles from primary sources: magazines such as Science News and Scientific American, as well as your local newspaper covering environmental and scientific topics. Choose articles on current, relevant science topics that interest adolescents and may affect their future. The pros and cons of hydrofracking, the pros and cons of offshore oil drilling, the effect of acid rain, the use of farm fertilizers in watersheds, and controlling invasive species are five such examples. Have students summarize the articles for homework and write three to five questions for further discussion in class the next day. Encourage in-class student-to-student dialogues where they share their summaries and questions in small groups. Foster scientific argumentation by having students either agree or disagree with the author and provide evidence or opinions as counterclaims. Careful planning of classroom questions can foster an inductive thinking model and whole-class discourse. As inquiry-based teachers hone their questioning skills, they provide opportunities to internalize learning, motivate students to challenge their models and thoughts, and provide thoughtful, engaging discussions around topics that are relevant to students.

Just Tell Me the Answer Aside from the challenges in making time to do inquiry, the initial resistance of students to inquiry-based instruction can also be an obstacle to overcome. That’s because students are accustomed to getting an answer from their teacher. When we were born, we were given two ears and one mouth. Do you think we were brought into this existence to listen twice as much as we talk? As a teacher, you may feel it’s your job, even your professional responsibility, to provide answers for the questions that students ask. A good inquiry-based teacher, however, refrains from always providing the answer. A good inquiry teacher first listens to the question being asked and then, in his or her mind, pauses to determine whether the student has enough ability to answer the question on his or her own. If the answer is “yes,” then rephrasing the question or providing a prompt usually enables the student to get back on track in answering his or her own question. Sometimes the prompt will help the student to clarify the concept that is puzzling to him or her. Sometimes the prompt can suggest that the student recall previously

175

176

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

learned information to answer the question. Sometimes the teacher can simply respond with, “Well, what do you think?” If, however, the teacher feels the student does not have sufficient background to answer the question even after giving a prompt, it may be best to just come out and guide the student to the understanding desired or give the student the answer. Providing prompts to a student without adequate background can lead to frustration on the part of the teacher as well as the student. This explains why the teacher’s pause at the end of the student’s question is so essential. That brief, 3-second pause allows the teacher to assess the level of understanding the student has and provide an appropriate response to the question. Practicing temperance in answering questions is not always as easy to do as it sounds. Students, even from their earliest grades, expect answers to their questions. That’s why when students experience an inquiry-based teacher who wants them to try to answer their own questions, one hears, “Why don’t you just tell me the answer?” On the one hand, telling students the answer might seem like the normal thing to do; on the other hand, refraining from always giving the answers helps students think creatively and logically—a first step in nurturing a community of inquirers.

The Power of Praise and Positive Reinforcement We all like to know when we are doing a good job. This is true especially for high school students. When used correctly, effective praise confirms and commends an acceptable answer. It also boosts learning and positive behaviors. Simply saying to a student that the answer she just gave is correct is not praise. Saying, “Good job” or “Now you’re really thinking” is a form of praise. Be mindful that praise should be authentic and credible. Giving praise for halfhearted replies dilutes the power of positive reinforcement. Avoid responding with “okay” to answers. Saying “okay” is a milquetoast response. If you don’t like saying “Good job,” consider giving nonlinguistic or signaled responses such as a “thumbs-up” or by showing an excited facial expression with a nod of the head. Using gestures and appropriate body language can also be an alternative way to show appreciation for a well-thought-out answer.

A Three-Step Approach to Better Questioning Now it’s time to put the tips and suggestions together to structure a three-step approach to better questioning. Step 1: Pose a direct question and pause 3 seconds (wait-time 1). Select an individual to answer and listen attentively to the student’s response. After the reply is given, pause another 3 seconds (wait-time 2) without repeating the answer. Step 2: Redirect the attention to another student. Select a second individual and ask a follow-up question. The question can serve to prompt another response, probe for further understanding, or clarify the position of the responder. Listen attentively to the answer. After the reply is given, pause another 3 seconds (wait-time 2) without repeating the answer.

DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE QUESTIONING SKILLS

Step 3: Make an acknowledgment to both students, offering praise for their answers and contribution to the class discussion. The following chart summarizes the three steps and lists suggested science-related thinking verbs and questions that correlate with each domain of Bloom’s Taxonomy.

Step 1: Ask a Question Low and Mid-Level Questions

Key Science-Related Verbs

Examples

Knowledge/Recall

Copy, define, identify, label, list, match, memorize, name, recall, record, select, show, state, tell

•• •• •• ••

Comprehension

Categorize, clarify, classify, compare, conclude, contrast, demonstrate, describe, discuss, distinguish, estimate, explain, generalize, group, illustrate, infer, interpret, order, outline, predict, relate, rephrase, report, restate, review, show, summarize, translate

•• Why does that matter? •• How would you compare . . . ? •• What’s the main idea . . . ? •• What can you say about . . . ? •• What do you mean by that?

Application

Apply, calculate, choose, compute, construct, determine, develop, extend, elaborate, identify, illustrate, modify, model, organize, prepare, plan, select, solve, transfer, use

•• •• •• ••

What is . . . ? Where is . . . ? What answer did you get? Tell me what happened.

What if . . . ? What would happen if . . . ? How come . . . ? Why does that apply to this situation? •• What does that remind you of? •• What examples can you give? •• How would you classify . . . ?

Step 2: Ask a Follow-Up Question Follow-Up Questions

Examples

Clueing and Prompting (acts as a “starter” to initiate a response)

•• •• •• •• •• ••

Do you think if you tried this . . . ? Does anyone have a response to Carl’s answer? How else can you answer that question? What else? Can you give me some supporting details to defend your answer? Can you elaborate on your answer?

Probing (acts to have the student elaborate or extend a response)

•• •• •• ••

What makes you think that? Why do you think that happened? What did you mean by that? What are you thinking about? (Continued)

177

178

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

(Continued)

Clarifying (acts to have the student further elucidate, defend, or justify a response)

•• •• •• •• ••

Can you be more specific about your answer? Why does that matter? Tell me more about that. What else do you know about that? What steps did you take to arrive at that conclusion?

•• •• •• •• •• •• ••

What makes you think that? Why did you say that? What did you mean by that? Can you answer that in a different way? Can you be more specific? What evidence do you have to support your answer? Why did you say that?

Step 3: Respond to the Answer With an Acknowledgment Acknowledgment Comments

Examples

Praise and Positive Reinforcement

•• •• •• ••

Appreciation

•• •• •• •• •• ••

Good answer. Wow, that’s good. I like your answer. I admire your ability and willingness to respond so thoughtfully. Now you’re thinking like a scientist! Your answer is a good example of critical thinking. Your answer adds to our discussion. Your answer demonstrates you are really thinking. You’re a good thinker. Nonverbal gesture: applaud or thumbs-up

•• •• •• •• •• ••

Thank you. I appreciate your answer. The class values your input. I’m pleased you gave such a thoughtful answer. Congratulations on giving a great answer. Nonverbal gesture: applaud or thumbs-up

Recalibrate Your Questioning Skills I hope this chapter has provided you with ways to recalibrate and hone your questioning skills. But, as with all other skills, developing them takes time and practice. Before we move on to exploratory questions, let’s summarize some of the suggestions for improving the delivery of expository questions. You an recalibrate your questioning skills by •• •• •• ••

adopting a set of classroom norms that support quality questioning, preparing questions in advance of a lesson, avoiding chorus questions and repeating student answers, involving all students in answering questions,

DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE QUESTIONING SKILLS

•• using wait-time techniques, •• using redirected strategies to encourage student-to-student interactions, •• providing clues and prompts when students have difficulty answering questions or need to elaborate their answers, and •• providing acknowledgment and positive feedback to responses.

Exploratory Questions It has been said, “A question well stated is a solution half solved.” From that quote we can appreciate how writing a good question is the first step in designing a good inquiry. References to exploratory questions are found throughout all eight practices for K−12 science classrooms as recommended by the Framework (NRC, 2012). In fact, the Framework reinforces the importance of asking questions as the first of the eight essential practices by stating, “The learning experiences provided for students should engage them with fundamental questions about the world and with how scientists have investigated and found answers to those questions” (p. 9); furthermore, “Framing a curriculum around such sets of questions helps to communicate relevance and salience to this audience” (p. 28). If high school science students are to become experienced with the processes of inquiry and argumentation, they need to have ongoing opportunities to formulate exploratory and researchable questions. Framing such questions will lead to deciding what data need to be collected, what variables should be controlled, what tools or instruments are needed to gather the data, what charts or tables need to be designed to record the appropriate data, and eventually how to incorporate percent of error in analyzing the data. Also at the high school level, students should be expected to develop one (or more) hypothesis (hypotheses) that predicts a probable outcome where the hypothesis is based on a welldeveloped model or theory (NRC, 2012). The following charts list several sample questions and prompts for each of the Seven Segments of science inquiry. The sample questions also complement the eight practices outlined in the Framework. Become accustomed to posing questions and prompts such as these as you guide your students through inquiry investigations.

Seven Segments of Science Inquiry With Exploratory Questions and Prompts Seven Segments of Science Inquiry

Cognitive and Manipulative Skills of Segment

Teacher’s Low- and Mid-Level Questions

Teacher’s Mid- and High-Level Questions

1. Exploring a Phenomenon

Observe a phenomenon or discrepant event (or engage in an open-ended exploration)

What do you observe?

What can you infer from the observation?

What additional observations can you make?

What prior knowledge do others have about the phenomenon?

Assess your prior knowledge about the phenomenon by asking, “What do I know about what’s happening?”

What prior knowledge do you have about the phenomenon?

(Continued)

179

180

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

(Continued) Seven Segments of Science Inquiry

Cognitive and Manipulative Skills of Segment

Teacher’s Low- and Mid-Level Questions

Teacher’s Mid- and High-Level Questions

What is your question?

Why did you select this particular question?

Assess others’ prior knowledge about the phenomenon by asking, “What do others know about what’s happening?” 2. Focusing on a Question

Make a list of several questions to investigate from the observations made Choose one (or the first) question to investigate

What prior knowledge do you have about your question?

Scrutinize the question by asking, “Is the question investigatable?”

How did your observations lead to your question?

What information will you need to investigate your question?

Modify the question, if needed

What additional questions can you investigate from observing the phenomenon?

What are several similar questions you could investigate from the observed phenomenon?

Seek initial evidence through additional observations of the phenomenon

Why is the question important to you?

Clarify what you mean by the question.

Clarify the question by asking, “Before designing Can you rephrase the an investigation, do I question another completely understand the way? question?” Is your question Rewrite the question, if investigatable? necessary Write the question on a sentence strip 3. Planning an Investigation

Decide what data need to be collected to answer the question

What data did you need to collect to answer the question?

Identify the variables and constants needed to investigate the question

How will you design an investigation to answer the question?

Design a controlled experiment or investigation to answer the question

What supplies and materials will you need to investigate the question?

Predict or hypothesize what you think the answer to the question will be. How will you design your investigation? What variables will you consider in designing the investigation?

DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE QUESTIONING SKILLS

Seven Segments of Science Inquiry

Cognitive and Manipulative Teacher’s Low- and Skills of Segment Mid-Level Questions

Teacher’s Mid- and High-Level Questions

Identify the materials needed to carry out the investigation

Propose a possible answer to your question.

Draw an illustration of the setup for the investigation Propose one or more hypotheses to test a tentative explanation or predict an outcome to the investigation

What are the steps in your investigation? How many trials will you conduct? What is the manipulating variable in the investigation?

What other answers are also possible?

What is the responding variable?

Do you need a control Design a chart or table to for this investigation? organize the data to be Why or why not? collected during the investigation Identify safety rules to follow during the investigation 4. Conducting the Carry out the Investigation investigation Collect appropriate data Record data in the proper column of the chart or table Graph the results, if applicable Redesign and retry the investigation, if necessary

5. Analyzing Data Interpret and make and Evidence meaning from the data Determine if the data is biased or flawed in any way Seek patterns and relationships among the variables

How will you organize your data on a table or chart?

Is your investigation well designed?

What will your data table look like? What variable will become the vertical axis on the graph? What variable will become the horizontal axis on the graph? What is an appropriate title for your graph? What are the results of the data? Are the data from the trials consistent? Do you see a pattern coming from the data?

Were your original assumptions about the question correct? How will you defend your findings? What is the relationship between

(Continued)

181

182

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

(Continued) Seven Segments of Cognitive and Manipulative Science Inquiry Skills of Segment

Teacher’s Low- and Mid-Level Questions

Teacher’s Mid- and HighLevel Questions

Draw an initial conclusion based on the data

What patterns are emerging from the data?

the independent and dependent variables?

Analyze the data and evidence to support, modify, or refute the previously stated hypotheses or predictions Make a claim based on the evidence

6. Constructing New Knowledge

Are the data biased?

Are the data reliable? What conclusions can you draw from the How would you data? interpret the data and evidence? How does the evidence support or refute your What claim can you claim? make based on the evidence? How is one variable dependent upon What can you another? conclude from the data? What explanation can you propose from the How do the data evidence collected? support your previous convictions How do the results about the question? support what you expected? How will you summarize your findings?

Form an explanation (or model) from the claim and supporting evidence

Tell me what you learned from doing the investigation.

Relate the explanation (or model) to existing models

Were your original assumptions about the question correct?

Reflect upon and make meaning as to your newly acquired knowledge Connect new knowledge to your prior knowledge and the knowledge of others

What do the data say or imply?

What claim can you make based on the evidence? Tell me what you learned from doing the investigation.

If you were to redesign your investigation, what would you change or do differently? Were your original assumptions about the question correct? How will you summarize your findings? How will you defend your findings?

What is the main discovery for your investigation?

Create a model to explain your new knowledge.

How does the new knowledge apply to

How do the results support what you

DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE QUESTIONING SKILLS

Seven Segments of Science Inquiry

7. Communicating New Knowledge

Cognitive and Manipulative Teacher’s Low- and Skills of Segment Mid-Level Questions

Choose a means to communicate your explanation (or model) and findings to others (e.g., oral report, poster, PowerPoint, written report)

other situations you are learning about?

already knew about the phenomenon?

How will your new knowledge impact what you do or say?

Can you develop an explanation from the results?

Create a model to explain your new knowledge.

How would you investigate another variable from the results?

What have you learned from the investigation?

What other questions do you have?

How will you communicate your results to others?

Was your investigation well designed?

What is the main idea you discovered from your investigation?

Discuss your conclusions How does the new with others knowledge apply to other situations you Use scientific-reasoning are learning about? skills to link your claim and supporting evidence How will you defend your findings? Engage in scientific argumentation, allowing How will you connect others to critique your your claims and investigation and evidence? findings and provide counterclaims to your What other questions findings would you like to investigate? Make modifications to your explanation or model, if needed Consider other follow-up questions or other questions to investigate

Teacher’s Mid- and HighLevel Questions

If you were to redesign your investigation, what would you change or do differently? Were your original assumptions about the question correct? How will you summarize your findings? How will you defend your findings? Create a model to explain your new knowledge. If another classmate was to do a similar investigation, what would you advise him or her about designing the investigation? How will your new knowledge impact what you do or say? Was your investigation well designed?

183

184

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

Although teachers often portray inquiry and argumentation as a means to resolve questions, in reality, sometimes investigations result in discrepancies and disagreements that lead to additional questions to investigate and alternative explanations to consider (NRC, 2012), commencing the inquiry cycle to begin all over again. Maybe that’s why it’s called “sigh-ence.”

Case Study: Designing a Professional Development Plan Note: This case study will focus on three themes: (1) improving classroom questioning skills through effective professional development, (2) establishing a support system for instructional change (including colleagues and coaches), and (3) understanding the progression of the change process through the identification of presently used and desired questioning strategies. At the start of the 2011 school year, James Monroe High School (all school and teacher names in this case were changed) implemented a new schoolwide professional development model. The Monroe model focused on several key elements where teachers designed their own individual improvement plans. In using the model, teachers had to make a long-term commitment toward the improvement of one or more instructional behaviors that resulted in increased student achievement. In addition, the plan had to be teacher driven and show qualities of effective professional development. Centering on their similar needs, Allison and Phillip, two chemistry teachers at Monroe High School, chose to work collaboratively on their professional development plan. Since Allison and Phillip knew that most of their 11th-grade chemistry students would elect to take an Advance Placement science course as seniors as well as pursue a 2- or 4-year college after graduation, they decided that improving the questioning skills of their students, as well as their own, would fit the model requirements. Because both teachers already worked together in planning inquiry-based chemistry labs for the past 3 years, they felt that improving their questioning strategies would complement a culture of inquiry where students feel free and comfortable asking questions. In their plan, the two teachers stated that their goal was to create a community of learners within a risk-free questioning environment where students maximized their learning from the questions posed as well as the answers provided in class. In short, they wanted to make classroom questions more meaningful and directed toward more effective learning. Since there was no one within the school who could act as a role model, they decided to find a mentor or coach outside the school district that could help in defining their present practice, observe their chemistry lessons and give constructive feedback, assist in implementing new strategies by co-teaching a class and modeling questioning strategies. That decision led them to contact Dr. McKenzie, a science and mathematics education professor at a local university, to act as their mentor. Dr. McKenzie taught graduate-level science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education courses at the university and one of particular interest to the two chemistry teachers, STEM 655: Improving and Sustaining Effective Questioning Skills. For their first meeting, Dr. McKenzie came to Monroe High School to talk with Allison and Phillip about their professional development plan. During their initial conversation,

DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE QUESTIONING SKILLS

they discussed how change involves establishing clear, realistic goals, practicing new strategies, allowing time for gradual improvement, having a support system, monitoring progress, and reflecting on new emerging behaviors. Allison and Phillip concurred that taking these steps was essential to their professional development plan. Dr. McKenzie said that he was interested in acting as their coach and furthermore wanted to use the experience as the foundation for a research article they could collaboratively write and submit for publication. Dr. McKenzie suggested that Allison and Phillip buy a copy of the book he uses in his questioning class, Quality Questioning: Research-Based Practice to Engage Every Learner by Walsh and Sattes (2005). He suggested that the chapter readings would guide and supplement their discussions throughout the project. Dr. McKenzie also suggested a second book, Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics, 3rd edition, by Loucks-Horsley, Mundry, Love, and Hewson (2010). This book provided an excellent framework for designing Allison and Phillip’s professional development plan. Their second meeting occurred a week later. During that time, Dr. McKenzie asked Allison and Phillip to identify their strengths and weaknesses regarding their classroom questioning skills. This information would help them plan ways to close the gap between where they were presently and where they would like to be 1 year and then 2 years from now. Phillip began by saying he was quite familiar with Bloom’s Taxonomy from his undergraduate methods classes but usually asked lower-level questions. He said, “I typically ask questions to keep the class moving and on-task. I also ask questions to see which students did the reading assignment.” Allison responded next, “I normally use the IRE method. When I ask a question and the student responds with an incorrect answer, I give the student some credit in trying to answer but go on to ask another student.” When Dr. McKenzie asked each of them why they chose to ask questions the way they do, Allison explained, “We have a lot of content to cover and not enough classroom time to teach the chemistry curriculum in any depth. If we have any spare time, it usually goes to providing students with inquiry-lab investigations. They also take more time, but in the end, students like the inquiry labs better, so they’re worth the extra time they take.” Phillip added, “It’s probably out of habit, but recall-type questions are easier to ask. Plus, they help students retain the chemistry facts and vocabulary terms they need to know for the test.” As Allison and Phillip continued to comment on their strengths and weaknesses, Dr. McKenzie took notes that would be useful for reflection later in the project. As the meeting progressed, Dr. McKenzie asked the two teachers to individually make a bulleted list of the areas they wanted to improve upon. When done, Allison and Phillip would read their lists aloud and look for similarities and differences between their responses. Phillip listed that he wanted the following: •• To ask questions that were less whole-class and rote-memorization oriented. •• To have less passive learning and less one-way communication. Later he would elaborate by adding, “I don’t want to do all the talking in the class. I want students to answer other students’ questions.” •• To ask clear and focused questions and have students give more supporting details in their answers. •• To ask questions equitably so all students are involved in the discussion and to ensure questions are heard by all. Allison then responded with her list. First, she began by stating that she wanted students to do the following:

185

186

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

•• To ask questions when they are confused. •• To speculate about other students’ ideas and responses. •• To use questioning to guide them in assuming more responsibility for their own learning. She then shifted to stating what she wanted as a teacher: •• To create a culture where students feel comfortable asking questions. •• To ask better questions without sacrificing too much additional time. Dr. McKenzie then asked them to think about their beliefs about quality questioning. “You already stated that good questions facilitate productive learning,” he said, “and that every student should have the opportunity to be called upon to answer.” Phillip interjected, “Sometimes a student will give me an answer that I’m not looking for, but it’s still a good answer from the student’s point of view. I need to accept that before making any judgment about the answer.” “And that’s an excellent place to start,” Dr. McKenzie replied. “Now, make a mental picture of a classroom where questions are highly valued in the learning process. Describe, to yourself, what the teacher is doing and saying in this classroom. Then describe what the students are doing and saying in this same situation. What present skills do you already have to implement this model? What new skills do you need to develop to implement this model? That,” the professor said, “will be your homework before we next meet.” Over the next 2 months, Dr. McKenzie visited Allison and Phillip’s chemistry classes to observe their questioning skills and suggest strategies to implement to improve those skills. Several times he volunteered to co-teach classes to demonstrate how wait-time can be used to enhance student answers. In those classes, he taught the teachers to ask a question and then count quietly to themselves, “one-one thousand, two-one thousand, threeone thousand,” and then call on a student to answer. Coach McKenzie, as he fondly became, helped them to see that learning is a social interaction that requires establishing classroom norms where questions are encouraged and asked without embarrassment or intimidation. As the school months moved along, Allison and Phillip grew to understand why questioning is one of the most important prerequisites to becoming effective inquirybased science teachers. They soon were able to articulate how their use of questions fostered scientific inquiry and argumentation in their chemistry classes. By the spring, Allison and Phillip had truly built a culture of questioning in their classrooms. Now, it was commonplace for them to plan questions in advance at various domains of taxonomy, especially those that require a higher level of thinking and problem solving. They recognized that students need time to formulate their own answers to their own questions and to think aloud and complete their thoughts without interruptions. As Phillip put it, “We all need time to think.” Prior to their work with Dr. McKenzie, Allison and Phillip tended to call on students who they thought would provide good, accurate answers to their questions. As Allison admitted, “That generally meant the high-achieving students. But now I give every student an opportunity to answer a question. Through coaching, I’ve learned to use questions to scaffold learning. I appreciate the work of Vygotsky and how questions serve as scaffolding to higher levels of thinking. I often tell my students to think of a mason building a brick wall. He can lay bricks for the lower level but needs a ladder or scaffolding to

DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE QUESTIONING SKILLS

lay the higher levels of the wall. They realize my questions serve that purpose—to help them think, provide details to support their thinking, and build confidence at higher levels. They even learned a new word, metacognition, and its meaning.” In the first year report of their professional development plan, Allison and Phillip identified the attributes of a classroom’s culture of questioning. Through their work with Dr. McKenzie and in establishing norms for questioning and responding to queries, the two teachers identified ways they used questions in the classroom as a means to •• encourage thinking, not punishment; •• keep students on a cognitive hook by posing the question first, then the student’s name; •• use a follow-up questioning strategy for the second student to provide an alternative response or critique of the original answer; •• avoid “shout out” answering •• offer students respect when responding, and allow them to give an answer without interruption from the teacher or from other students; •• reject an “I don’t know” response, but rather provide clues and prompts to scaffold students to an acceptable answer; and •• provide positive feedback after a student’s response. Allison and Phillip will continue their professional development plan for a second year. With Dr. McKenzie as their coach, the teachers will explore ways to take their questioning skills to the next level. In year two, they have identified exploring how to use questions as a formative assessment strategy. By planning questions in advance, the teachers will be able to assess how well their instruction is making sense to students and modify their classroom instruction as needed.

Questions for Reflection and Discussion 1. Many educational researchers have identified the steps in a typical change process. Although the steps may vary slightly from discipline to discipline, they often involve these nine: a. Assess present and desired states. b. Set clear, focused goals. c. Establish a support system. d. Learn and implement new instructional strategies. e. Allow time to practice—don’t expect change overnight. f. Monitor progress. g. Reflect on emerging practices. h. Celebrate short-term successes. i. Create a new classroom culture.

187

188

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

In the case study you just read, how were each of the nine steps above addressed in Allison and Phillip’s professional development plan? Briefly explain the importance of each step in the change process. Would you add any additional steps? Or delete any of the steps listed? What was the role of the coach in the change process? With mixed ability classes, what questioning strategies do you think would be most successful? Least successful? Present and justify your responses to a colleague. 2. In the 2007 best-selling novel, The Shack, by W. Paul Young, Sarayu exclaims, “I am a verb. I am that I am. I will be who I will be. I am a verb! I am alive, dynamic, ever active, and moving. I am a being verb. And as my very essence is a verb, I am more attuned to verbs than nouns. Verbs such as confessing, repenting, living, loving, responding, growing, reaping, changing, sowing, running, dancing, singing, and on and on. Humans, on the other hand, have a knack for taking a verb that is alive and full of grace and turning it into a dead noun or principle that reeks of rules: something growing and alive dies. Nouns exist because there is a created universe and physical reality, but if the universe is only a mass of nouns, it is dead. Unless ‘I am,’ there are no verbs, and verbs are what makes the universe alive.” (p. 204) The word question can be in the form of a noun or a verb. Using the quote above, distinguish between the two forms of the word question. Consider using one of the following prompts to frame your argument and then share it with a colleague. Be prepared to justify and defend your statement with supportive evidence. Sarayu argues that she would rather be a verb than a noun, and I agree with her because _______. Sarayu maintains that she would rather be a verb than a noun; however, I disagree with her because _______. Sarayu insists that she would rather be a verb than a noun, but I have mixed opinions. On one hand, I admire her position because _______, while on the other hand I dispute her assertion because _______. Although I agree with Sarayu to a point, I cannot fully accept her notion that _______. 3. For a different kind of discussion, view a classic video segment from Saturday Night Live. In this humorous class parody, Jerry Seinfeld plays Mr. Thompson, a high school history teacher. View the segment and analyze the teacher’s style of questioning. Using Bloom’s Taxonomy, identify the level of questions the teacher most frequently asks during the lesson. How does Mr. Thompson respond to correct answers? How does he respond to incorrect answers? Does he pose chorus questions or call on specific students by name? Although the segment is contrived, take note of any gender or racial bias in the teacher’s questioning techniques. See http://cooperativelearning.nuvvo.com/ lesson/9592-seinfeld-teaches-history 4. Put your observations skills to good use. Select a science class to observe a teacher’s questioning strategies. Make notes on whether you witness any gender bias in the

DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE QUESTIONING SKILLS

selection of students to answer. In other words, does the teacher call on or choose more boys than girls to answer? Or more girls than boys? Does the teacher demonstrate any racial bias? Are all students called upon equitably to answer? Note where the teacher is standing in the class and which student gets called upon to answer. Does the teacher call on a student in his or her immediate area? Identify the domain for each question the teacher asks. At the end of the class, total the number of questions asked for each domain of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Did the teacher ask questions across all domains or mainly at knowledge/recall and comprehension levels? 5. As in Question 4, the Wait-Time Monitoring Chart below helps in recording the levels of questions a teacher poses and his or her use of wait-time that follows the question. Select a colleague’s science lesson to observe. As the lesson gets underway, write a question posed by the teacher in the first column. Next, identify and circle the level or domain of the question. Then record whether the teacher waits 3 second before calling on a student. If possible, fill in the student’s name and his or her response. Next, record whether the teacher uses wait-time 2 and pauses after the student’s response. Lastly, fill in any follow-up question the teacher may ask and if he or she gives an acknowledgment after the follow-up question. Realizing this is a lot of information to record, you may want to observe just select columns of the chart. Share your data with the teacher you observed and discuss their implications.

Initial Question

Level of Question

WaitTime 1 (At Least 3 Seconds?)

K C Ap An S E

Yes or No

Yes or No

K C Ap An S E

Yes or No

Yes or No

K C Ap An S E

Yes or No

Yes or No

K C Ap An S E

Yes or No

Yes or No

K C Ap An S E

Yes or No

Yes or No

K C Ap An S E

Yes or No

Yes or No

Source: Adapted from Walsh & Sattes, 2005.

Student Name

Student Response

WaitTime 2 (At Least 3 Seconds?)

Follow-Up Question

Teacher Acknowledgment or Response

189

10 Assessing Scientific Inquiry The Anxiety Over Assessment As science teachers, we understand the need to determine what our students are learning. According to the National Research Council’s (2001b), Knowing What Students Know, From teachers’ informal quizzes to nationally administrated standardized assessments, assessments have long been an integral part of the educational process. Educational assessments assist teachers, students, and parents in determining how well students are learning. They help teachers understand how to adapt instruction on the basis of evidence of student learning. (p. 19)

190

But just the sheer mention of a unit test or a final examination can strike fear in the hearts of high school students. To most students, tests and exams are a necessary evil of school. The threat of an examination can also cause even the best of students to freeze up, a phenomenon known as “test anxiety.” Yet high-stakes standardized tests, end-of-unit assessments, and midterm and final examinations have become a routine part of a school’s instructional program. Some estimates report that schools devote as many as 20 days, or approximately one-tenth of the academic year, to district, statewide, and national testing. Besides these formalized tests, teachers constantly make informal judgments and formative assessments in their classrooms all day long to monitor student progress toward achieving curricular standards. It is no wonder that assessment is a major concern to teachers today. “Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.” This maxim, reportedly posted in the office of Albert Einstein, summarizes the recent controversy over high-stakes standardized testing versus proponents of alternative assessment. Although inquiry may seem, at first, difficult to assess, there are useful means to measure students’ competence in scientific inquiry. Whereas traditional paper-andpencil multiple-choice tests are best in assessing content knowledge, teachers can use an array of alternative strategies, such as performance tasks, rubrics, monitoring charts,

ASSESSING SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

capstone projects, transcending questions, concept maps, structured interviews, and selfassessments to measure students’ competence in inquiry. Before examining such strategies, let’s first focus on the importance of assessment and its alignment to standards and instruction. Assessment is the process of using on-demand written tests and/or alternative performance tasks to collect evidence and data to make judgments regarding students’ work and progress over time and to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of the teacher’s instruction, leading to possible modification of the lesson or unit of study. In short, assessment has a twofold goal: determining the level of competence of the student and the effectiveness of the teacher’s instruction. Although the terms assessment and testing are often used interchangeably, assessment refers to making judgments about performance and instruction, whereas testing refers to the administration and mechanics of the examination instrument itself. Assessment is an integral aspect of teaching and learning science. When a teacher makes formative and summative assessments about student work, she makes critical judgments about its quality in terms of what the student should know and be able to do and uses that information to design follow-up steps for instructional improvement. Thus, assessment includes a multiple focus: determining the criteria for learning and quality of student work, monitoring student progress, and adjusting and improving instruction.

Curriculum Alignment Curriculum alignment is a concept referring to the interrelationship among standards, instruction, and assessment. The concept of curriculum alignment is often represented in the form of a triangle. The top point of the curriculum alignment triangle identifies the learning standards. The standards may originate or be guided from the national, state, or district level and may be defined as learning goals, frameworks, benchmarks, syllabi, or any document that identifies what students should know and be able to do. The standards are the starting point in designing any instructional or assessment program. The second point of the triangle identifies the instructional program. The instructional program includes the scope and sequence, units of study, learning strategies and activities, print and computer resources, and other teaching materials. The third point of the triangle identifies the assessment program. The assessment program includes both formative and summative assessment. When the curriculum is aligned, the three aspects complement each other. In other words, the instructional and the assessment programs are in congruence with the implementation of the standards. If the goal of science literacy is to develop active, engaged learners, then the instructional and the assessment components of the science program should align to the standards by also being active and engaging to students. In any instructional program, high school science teachers need to clearly and specifically communicate to their students the goals and standards for their courses. Teachers then need to design appropriate assessment strategies that measure whether the goals and standards have been attained. Finally, teachers need to create and implement an instructional program that guides students through a sequence of learning opportunities and leads to success in attaining the standards. Problems with curriculum congruence arise when there is a mismatch or misalignment between the instructional strategies used by the teacher and the assessment techniques employed. For example, if high school chemistry students are learning through student-initiated inquiry, methods in which they are solving problems based on observed

191

192

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

evidence and are later tested solely through multiple-choice items, the instruction and assessment aspects of the program are out of alignment. If you want to know if students learned a specific concept, a multiple-choice assessment can quickly determine that. If you want to know if students can complete a process, then a performance assessment is most appropriate.

Figure 10.1  Curriculum Alignment

Standards

Assessment

Instructional Program

According to Audet and Jordan (2003), the central questions addressed by the principle of congruence are 1) how does the teacher take a learning goal and use it to design an assessment that provides valid and sufficient evidence that this goal has been achieved by students and 2) how does a teacher then use this assessment to guide his or her selection of learning experiences that enable students to demonstrate that they have attained the learning goals? (p. 51) To have standards, instruction, and assessment aligned and consistent, teachers can ask themselves three questions: 1. What do my students need to know and be able to do? (standard) 2. How will I know whether the students meet the standard? (assessment) 3. What learning opportunities will I provide for students to meet the standard? (instruction)

Formative and Summative Assessment Tools An assessment is a tool teachers use to determine a student’s knowledge and skills and to produce data that can be used to draw sound judgments about what he knows and is

ASSESSING SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

able to do. Assessment tools have two major functions in teaching and learning: the first is to monitor and adjust student learning during a lesson or unit of study (formative assessment), and the second is to evaluate student level of competency and performance at the end of a lesson or unit of study and to make decisions as to a grade, placement, or promotion (summative assessment). Both serve equally important roles in the high school science classroom. With formative assessment, the teacher poses prompts and probes to determine what a student is thinking about in regard to a subject being studied. These prompts and probes help the teacher assess how learning is progressing and make modifications to the instruction while the lesson is under way. Saying it another way, formative assessments serve as information for teachers to adjust the instruction when signs indicate that students are confused or puzzled about the content being presented. In regard to formative assessment, research concludes that when teachers use formative assessment, students receive ongoing feedback about their work along with suggestions on how to improve their learning. During a science inquiry, the teacher may pose formative, exploratory-type questions such as the ones listed in Chapter 9. Conversely, summative assessments consist of quizzes and end-of-unit tests where letter grades are assigned. The upcoming sections of this chapter will categorize different domains or levels of thinking involved with various summative-type test questions. To read more about formative and summative assessments, see Classroom Assessment and the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 2001c), as well Resource A in the back of the book.

Designing Assessments Unfortunately, most high school teachers have been taught to use the learning standards to first design an instructional unit and then write the unit test. In this way, the sequence of planning units of study starts with the standards, moves to the instructional strategies, and finally arrives at the assessment procedures. Although this may sound logical, McTighe and Wiggins (2005) offer a “backwards design” approach to curricula planning. They suggest first sequencing the design of units of study with the standards, then moving to the assessment method, and last forming the instructional strategies. In the backwards design approach, McTighe and Wiggins suggest that teachers first be extremely clear in identifying the unit’s goals and expectations (what the student is expected to know and be able to do), and then decide how to determine the level of performance in achieving the standards. By placing the assessment up front, before the instructional strategies, the teacher avoids writing the test the night before it’s given. In a backwards design approach, the planning of the unit progresses from standards, to assessment, to instructional strategies. As the teacher designs the assessment procedures, she asks herself, “At the end of a lesson or unit of study, how do I know that learning has taken place? What knowledge, skills, and scientific dispositions have students attained? How does the assessment reflect what I truly believe students need to know and be able to do?” In Chapter 5, you read how having a constructivist perspective is fundamentally a mind-set in becoming an inquiry-based teacher. The constructivist or cognitive perspective highly regards how individuals construct knowledge and equally how to assess such knowledge beyond the routine objective-type questions. This assertion is backed by the National Research Council (2001b) stating as follows: An important purpose of assessment is not only to determine what people know, but also to assess how, when and whether they use what they know. This information is

193

194

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

difficult to capture in traditional tests, which typically focus on how many items examinees answer correctly or incorrectly, with no information being provided about how they derived those answers or how they understand the underlying concepts. (p. 62) Thus, for constructivist and inquiry-based teachers, it becomes essential to understand how assessments work to our benefit to enhance student learning and performance, not just evaluating it.

Choosing the Right Test Item Given the vast amount of content students are expected to amass during today’s high school science courses, it is not difficult to understand the role that traditional, on-demand tests play in assessing student achievement. Test items of this type share the advantages of ease in administration and scoring, reliability, and availability. Objective question formats, such as multiple choice, true or false, matching, and fill-in-the-blank, frequently can be found at the end of a chapter in biology, earth science, chemistry, and physics textbooks. Objective test items do a reasonable job of assessing basic facts and the large numbers of details students need to master in a short amount of time. Although objective-type items serve the specific function of assessing content, they do not provide any more than a snapshot of understanding at a particular time, nor do they capture the progression of learning over time (NRC, 2001b). Acquiring test items that are appropriate for assessing inquiry and the nature of science can seem like a challenge. Fortunately, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has an assessment Web site with over 600 items tested and researched for accuracy and reliability. The AAAS Project 2061 Science Assessment Web site can be found at http://assessment.aaas.org. The site offers free access to items appropriate to middle and high school science students for life, earth, and physical science, and the nature of science. The items test for common misconceptions as well as correct ideas. Click the section on the Nature of Science and see how the items on controlling variables and using models can apply to your inquiry lessons. Conventional wisdom suggests that inquiry assessment should mirror the work students do in school. For that reason, assessing inquiry skills is best done over extended periods of time rather than during a test in a single class period. If any classroom instrument is used to make rightful judgments about a student’s ability to use the skills of scientific inquiry, the assessment should assess the scope of understandings and abilities that encompass the nature of inquiry (NRC, 2001c). Think of an assessment of inquiry skills as practicing for a diving competition. The competition (or test) is completely known to the diver (or student). The diver (or student) gets to practice a particular dive (or task) and knows both what he or she is expected to do during the competition (or test) and the criteria for a high score (or grade). With a standards-driven, inquiry-based assessment, the teacher’s goal is to balance objective testing with authentic performance tasks that mirror or apply the work completed during the investigation. An appropriate inquiry-based assessment will test not only content knowledge but also science process skills, scientific reasoning skills, and metacognitive skills. The assessment would also include the standard to be achieved, the criteria for accomplishment, and examples of exemplary, high-quality student work. In scientific inquiry, teachers develop a new paradigm for assessing students’ work. It includes not only the answers they give but also the questions they raise.

ASSESSING SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

Given the subjectivity of inquiry-based assessment, without specific measurements much of the assessment depends on the judgment of the classroom teacher. After all, it is the classroom teacher who knows his students’ work the best. The National Research Council (2001c) suggests that “inquiry is difficult to assess in a one-time test. A teacher’s position in the classroom allows for personal judgments of one’s abilities over extended investigation that cannot be matched by any feasible external testing procedure” (p. 17). For that reason, teachers need to constantly use multiple assessment measures to monitor and record students’ interactions. What is important is that assessment is an ongoing activity, one that relies on multiple strategies and sources for collecting information that bears on the quality of student work and that can be used to help both the students and the teacher think more pointedly about how the quality might be improved. (NRC, 2001c, p. 30)

Using Multiple Assessments Many of us have heard the phrase “teaching to the test.” The phrase refers to the notion that assessment drives instruction. Well, if it’s a good test, there is nothing wrong in teaching to the test. Because inquiry-based teachers consider assessment alternatives that align to the philosophy of inquiry, their decisions often lead to multiple, standards-driven assessments rather than reliance on one single test. It is, however, a bit more challenging to assess learning through inquiry. What verifiable evidence exists that learning has occurred? By correctly answering a multiple-choice question, does a student truly indicate that he or she has mastered the information? In learner-centered classrooms, effective science teachers choose various forms of assessment to make day-to-day as well as month-to-month judgments about students’ ongoing performances. By using a wide range of assessments, including multiple-choice items, constructed response questions, performance tasks, rubrics, transcending questions, monitoring charts, concept maps, structured interviews, self-assessments, and capstone projects, inquiry-based high school teachers can gain a better understanding of whether or not the student truly has constructed an understanding of the content.

Authentic Assessments The term authentic (or alternative) assessment is often used in describing measurements to assess inquiry. Authentic assessments are embedded tasks that are similar in form to tasks in which students will engage outside the classroom or are similar to the activities of scientists (NRC, 2001c). They are designed to measure what students know as well as what they can do. Authentic assessments have an advantage over traditional objective assessments. Besides assessing content and high-order thinking skills, they also provide opportunities for students to demonstrate creativity, problem solving, and decision making. Although it takes time to develop accurate, dependable, valid assessments that measure inquiry, having assessments that align to the standards and instruction is a step further in curriculum alignment. This section will provide several types of assessments high school science teachers can use in an inquiry-based classroom.

195

196

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

Performance Tasks In a performance task, students engage in collecting information to solve a given problem and often construct a model based on the evidence collected. Performance-based assessment can take the form of open-ended investigations, station-to-station laboratory tasks, or structured tasks. For an example of a performance task, David Stevens, a high school earth science teacher in Maryland, encourages problem solving in his classroom. This task assesses geologic understandings, manipulation, and science-process skills, as well as the ability to construct a model. According to Stevens (1991), Students start the exam by spending two to three days measuring, identifying, and recording data taken from meter-long plastic tubes that have been placed at specific locations around the classroom. Each tube represents a hypothetical core sample of material taken from that location. The tubes contain various rock and fossil specimens that will be used to draw conclusions about climate, geologic age, geologic events, and geologic history. Students may collect their data individually, in pairs, or in small groups. The data collected and the method by which the student represents the data comprise one-third of the final exam grade. (p. 359) In the second part of the final exam, each student takes his or her data home and constructs a model of the area represented in the classroom. (Previous examples of models are withheld from the students.) Finished models usually take the form of geologic maps, topographic maps, cross sections, or three-dimensional replicas. The model constitutes another third of the final grade. Lastly, each student is required to write a geologic history of the area. The theoretical geologic history must be plausible, and the history should identify as many of the area’s unique geological features as possible. There is no required length for the theory, which constitutes the remaining third of the final exam grade (Stevens, 1991, pp. 359, 361). In this case, the assessment provides an opportunity for students to demonstrate mastery of their understanding of earth science in a variety of ways. The task allows students to (a) use knowledge to solve problems, (b) use performance and science-process skills to complete the task, (c) collect data and evidence based upon their observations, and (d) construct an explanation, in the form of a written report, based on the evidence collected. In addition, the task reinforces the development of scientific dispositions and attitudes that empower students to make decisions on their own. For other excellent examples of high school performance tasks for biology, earth science, chemistry, and physics, see Resource A (Print Resources on Assessment), Science Educator’s Guide to Laboratory Assessment (2002) by Doran, Chan, Tamir, and Lenhardt.

Rubrics Rubrics or scoring guides, when used in conjunction with project-based assessments and performance tasks, provide a means for all students to achieve high standards by communicating what exemplary, high-standard work looks like. Rubrics articulate explicit performance descriptions and criteria for specific areas at different levels of competence. They distinguish proficiency from above-standard (or exemplary) and from below-standard (or unacceptable) work. Rubrics, when used throughout the inquiry investigation, foster conversations about what constitutes quality work. When a student

ASSESSING SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

asks the question, “What are we supposed to do?” the teacher can refer to the rubric. The rubric also answers the student question, “What do I have to do to get an A?” For students, rubrics take the “game” out of guessing what the teacher is looking for and provide a means of self-reflection when evaluating their own work. For teachers, rubrics communicate the classroom standard for excellent work. Many teachers who use rubrics in the classroom have confidence that they help students both make better judgments about their own work and strive for the highest possible standard. The holistic rubric shown in Figure 10.2 is applicable for scoring the planning and performance of a laboratory procedure such as the “Sugar and Sand Task” in Chapter 7.

Figure 10.2  Holistic Rubric for Scoring the Planning and Performance of a Laboratory Procedure

The Sugar and Sand Task Levels of Performance Level 3: Exemplary (above standard) •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••

Needs no prompting or assistance to begin or complete the task Demonstrates complete understanding of the nature, conditions, and limits of the question or problem Designs and describes in depth the logical order of the procedures Carries out the plan with accurate quantitative measurements Manipulates equipment and materials safely Uses appropriate techniques in collecting data Records data and measurements accurately and concisely Communicates findings and results effectively Demonstrates precise and accurate solutions to the question or problem Performance results in a precise and accurate solution to the question or problem

Level 2: Competent (at standard) •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••

Works cooperatively with partner to complete task Considers the nature, conditions, and limits of the question or problem Designs acceptable and appropriate procedures Carries out quantitative measurements Uses apparatus safely and with good technique Records measurement correctly Communicates findings in a satisfactory manner Performance results in a solution to the problem

Level 1: Limited or inadequate (below standard) •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••

Requires assistance or prompting to begin the task Fails to consider one or more conditions and limits of the question or problem Plans inappropriate procedure to solve the question or problem Uses unsafe laboratory techniques or procedures Makes errors in recording data Commits errors in calculations Records result incompletely Performance does not solve the question or problem

197

198

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

Transcending Questions Transcending questions allow the teacher to conduct assessments in situations where students use data and evidence from their original inquiry investigation to solve a problem in a related situation. This can be accomplished by referring to an investigation the students just completed and testing their understanding by providing a new, similar situation. The teacher can have students design another investigation using a different manipulated or independent variable, thus transcending what they learned in one situation and applying it to a different situation. As an example, in a 9th-grade physical science class, Ms. Clark uses Nasco’s Rubber Band Cannons to answer the question, “How does the angle of the cannon affect the distance the rubber band will travel?”

Figure 10.3  

During the inquiry phase of the lesson, students have to •• identify the manipulated variable (the angle), the responding variable (the distance the rubber band travels), and the controlled variables (the size of the rubber band, the amount of force applied to the rubber band, the classroom environment, how the rubber band is released, etc.); •• write a hypothesis for the investigation; •• design an appropriate investigation to test the question; •• carry out the investigation and record the data on a chart or a table; •• create a graph, using a computer, to represent the data; •• draw a conclusion that describes the relationship between the manipulated variable and the responding variable; •• determine whether the hypothesis (or which one of the hypotheses) is correct; and •• make a claim from the evidence collected and communicate the reasoning as to how the claim and evidence are related. During the assessment phase of the lesson, Ms. Clark gave the students a two-part test. The first part included 10 multiple-choice questions that measured their understanding of motion concepts, including trajectory and potential and kinetic energy. The second

ASSESSING SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

part of the test included an application question where some students had to design an experiment to determine how the force or “pull back” affects the distance the rubber band travels, while other students had to determine how the size of the rubber band affects the distance traveled. By using multiple assessment measures, Ms. Clark can determine not only what students know about forces, energy, and trajectories but also their abilities to use information gathered from an investigation and apply it to similar situations.

Monitoring Charts Observing day-to-day performance is an informal and practical means of assessment in an inquiry-based science classroom. Through the use of monitoring charts, teachers can observe and monitor a predetermined set of student behaviors, including the following: •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••

Brainstorms possible solutions to questions and problems Makes careful observations Follows directions Interacts positively with peers Uses equipment properly Acts responsibly Uses the Internet and computer software to collect, organize, and present data Makes positive constructive contributions during group work Collects data and evidence in a journal or research notebook

A teacher can move about the room, observe students’ behavior, and carefully note individual actions on a chart. Specific behaviors can be marked with a “check plus” (a+) for above-standard performance, a “check” (a) for at-standard performance, or a “check minus” (a-) for below-standard performance. High school teachers are also encouraged to make anecdotal records of daily observations and notations in a running record by using a notebook or chart on a clipboard to record students’ comments, questions, ideas, misconceptions, problems, and achievements. When using monitoring charts, remember to document the student’s name, date, time, and title of lesson. Teachers should observe and monitor all students equitably and make observations regularly to ensure reliability in the data collected. Figure 10.4 is an example of a monitoring chart. The monitoring chart can be easily modified to list the Seven Segments of Scientific Inquiry and its correlating tasks presented earlier in Chapter 1. Figure 10.4   Science Inquiry Monitoring Chart Stage/Behavior

Investigation # 1

2

3

4

5

Exploring makes observations records observations in journal takes careful notes

(Continued)

199

200

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

(Continued) Stage/Behavior

Investigation # 1

Exploring draws illustrations/sketches records “what if . . .” questions Stating a Question sorts and revises questions states an investigation question brainstorms possible solutions Identifying a Statement to Test makes a statement to test records statement Designing a Procedure brainstorms possible steps arranges steps in sequential order identifies manipulated variable identifies responding variable identifies dependent variables determines materials to use Carrying Out a Plan obtains supplies and materials follows written procedure follows safety guidelines shares/respects ideas with group members assumes responsibility for group role makes constructive contributions to group Collecting Evidence gathers data makes accurate measurements organizes data in tables or charts plots data on a graph

2

3

4

5

ASSESSING SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

Stage/Behavior

Investigation # 1

2

3

4

5

Exploring describes relationship between variables draws conclusion analyzes results determines validity of hypothesis Communicating Results prepares trifold poster makes contribution to presentation uses appropriate terminology makes eye contact with audience speaks clearly answers questions from audience reflects on investigation

Structured Interviews Although some students can demonstrate their competence in writing, others can best explain concepts by expressing themselves verbally. Structured interviews can be a viable means of assessing students’ understanding (Southerland, Smith, & Cummins, 2002) and are especially effective for students with test anxiety. During a structured interview, the teacher provides several probing questions or visual prompts to elicit the student’s understanding of a concept. The questions can center on the student solving a problem, making a prediction, or drawing a conclusion about a particular situation or phenomenon. The teacher may also choose to provide two or three questions in advance so that the student can prepare responses for the upcoming interview. In this case, the student researches the answers to the questions but will not know which specific questions will be asked during the interview. The advantage of this one-on-one interaction is that the student can then blend his or her jargon with scientific terms to express an understanding. This process also provides flexibility for the teacher, who can assess a student’s understanding of the inquiry process by individualizing and tailoring the questions posed based on the student’s responses. Because structured interviews are very time intensive, a teacher can use the interview process on a sample of students in the class to gauge the entire class’s understanding and modify instruction accordingly. While planning for a structured interview, consider the following steps: 1. Select questions based on goals and objectives of the lesson/unit. Include actual objects, diagrams, pictures, materials, or equipment whenever possible to assist in posing questions.

201

202

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

2. Design questions that provide students an opportunity to explain and elaborate their understandings. Avoid questions with “yes” or “no,” or “one-word” answers. 3. Start the interview with an easy question to make the students feel comfortable. The success of the structured interview lies in the comfort level of the students and their ability to provide supportive details to their responses. 4. Employ wait-time strategies for the student to respond. Do not interrupt the student in the middle of his or her answer. 5. Make recordings of the student’s responses by taking notes or using an audiotape recorder or a videotape machine. An interview can be either formal (structured) or informal (unstructured). In one example of a structured interview, both the teacher and student are sitting face-to-face discussing one-on-one what the student knows about a particular concept just studied. Through personalized communication, the student negotiates the meaning of the concepts and shares his understanding with the teacher. In the other example, an interview with a student can be more informal and day-to-day. In this case, the teacher circulates around the room, sits down with an individual student or group of students, and discusses the investigation, the procedure, and the evidence being recorded. The teacher carefully listens to students’ interactions, values their comments, and poses diagnostic questions to determine how well the individual or group is mastering the concepts being studied. During the informal interview process, The teacher makes judgments about the student’s level of understanding by assessing the student during the course of the project and carefully observing the student’s work, asking key questions along the way, and responding to the student’s questions. The teacher continually probes the student to ensure how well the student understands the concept, to determine how he approaches the problem, and to find out the assumptions that underlie a student’s response. During the process, the teacher has a unique opportunity to make considered judgments, based on the concrete evidence collected about the quality of student accomplishment. (NRC, 2001c, p. 8)

Self-Assessments Self-assessments are vehicles in which students assess their performance and monitor their metacognition skills through reflection on their own strengths and weaknesses. Selfassessments are especially useful in inquiry-based instruction because the student provides individual feedback on his or her performance and moves toward greater intellectual independence (Van Scotter & Pinkerton, 2008). Although students tend to rate themselves favorably, the self-assessment can be an effective evaluation instrument when it challenges students to reflect on the task and identify how they might improve their performance if they were to repeat the inquiry or engage in a similar task. Self-assessments usually contain a set of statements and a rating scale. The statements can describe proficient levels of behavior, while the rating scale can vary from 5 (the highest) to 1 (the lowest), or include descriptors such as Always, Usually, Sometimes, Rarely, and Never. Figure 10.5 is a self-assessment about the assessment system in your classroom. Complete the self-evaluation by circling the appropriate number/response for each statement.

ASSESSING SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

Figure 10.5   Circle the appropriate number/response for each of the following statements about your classroom assessment system: Always

Usually

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

5

4

3

2

1

My assessment system . . .  1.

Includes various measures, both traditional and authentic, to assess students’ understandings.

5

4

3

2

1

 2.

Includes assessing students’ understandings prior to the beginning of a new topic or unit.

5

4

3

2

1

 3.

Provides students with essential information that progress is being made toward reaching learning goals, standards, and course expectations.

5

4

3

2

1

 4.

Assists in planning, teaching, and making adjustments to the instructional program as well as students’ understandings.

5

4

3

2

1

 5.

Assesses group as well as individual work.

5

4

3

2

1

 6.

Assesses what students know, what they can do, and their scientific attitudes, attributes, or habits of mind.

5

4

3

2

1

 7.

Includes day-to-day as well as end of the unit assessments.

5

4

3

2

1

 8.

Provides students the opportunity to demonstrate their understandings, competencies, and accomplishments in a variety of ways.

5

4

3

2

1

 9.

Addresses core content and science-process skills.

5

4

3

2

1

10.

Is aligned to learning standards and instructional strategies.

5

4

3

2

1

(Continued)

203

204

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

(Continued) Circle the appropriate number/response for each of the following statements about your classroom assessment system: Always

Usually

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

5

4

3

2

1

My assessment system . . . 11.

Is based on clear, communicated criteria (e.g., rubrics).

5

4

3

2

1

12.

Applies to relevant and real-life situations that are extensions of in-class performances.

5

4

3

2

1

13.

Allows for at-home as well as in-class assessments.

5

4

3

2

1

14.

Allows students to engage in ongoing assessments of their work and that of others.

5

4

3

2

1

15.

Allows for the assessment to be written at the beginning of the unit rather than the night before it is administered.

5

4

3

2

1

16.

Is free of bias and ensures that all students are assessed fairly and equitably.

5

4

3

2

1

17.

Incorporates higher-order thinking skills such as appraising, critiquing, hypothesizing, and analyzing as well as recalling, describing, and explaining.

5

4

3

2

1

18.

Addresses the nature of science, social perspectives, and history of science.

5

4

3

2

1

19.

Includes students manipulating equipment and using laboratory techniques learned in the classroom.

5

4

3

2

1

20.

Includes review of written responses from other science teachers to ensure interrater reliability.

5

4

3

2

1

ASSESSING SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

In a way, rubrics can be considered a form of self-assessment. Using rubrics in the high school science classroom provides a unique opportunity for students to self-assess their work and strive to achieve at the highest standard. Through using a rubric to guide performance, students know what constitutes exemplary work. Rubrics allow students to reflect on their work and attain the highest possible level.

Capstone Projects Capstone projects are final inquiries, investigations, research projects, or presentations usually completed toward the end of the school year. When students complete a capstone project, they model the inquiry process by •• •• •• ••

identifying a worthwhile and researchable question, planning the investigation, executing the research plan, and drafting the research report. (NRC, 1996)

Capstone projects offer teachers a unique opportunity to judge how well students can integrate the knowledge from a science course and apply it in a research setting. When coupled with an oral presentation, capstone projects enhance speaking and listening skills, including making eye contact, projecting voice, and speaking clearly. Some high schools have separate courses or electives for juniors and seniors, such as Research in Science, that are completely inquiry based. In these courses, students choose a research question to investigate. The teacher or a community scientist acts as a mentor in guiding students in writing a proposal that carefully frames the question. Working as individuals or in small groups, students develop a set of procedures to carry out the inquiry, a list of materials and equipment needed, and a means for collecting and organizing the data. When the plan is completed, it is approved either by the classroom teacher or by a committee of other science teachers and/or peer reviewed by other students in the class. During the actual inquiry, students may need the assistance of a local college professor or might benefit from using a college’s laboratory facilities or library. For this reason, coordinating research with a nearby college or university may be helpful. The contact may also lead to the higher education institution offering college credit upon successful completion of the investigation.

Transitioning to New Assessments The most important point of this chapter is to clearly demonstrate that inquiry-based teaching is predicated on a different form of assessment. It is not always practical to use objective-type, multiple-choice items to assess scientific inquiry. Given the challenges of class size, with some teachers having as many as five classes with 25 to 30 students in each, the question often asked is “How do I make the transition to new assessments while I’m still trying to understand how to teach through inquiry?” It is true that authentic assessments demand more time to construct and correct. Some may question their subjectivity. Others may question their reliability. Because teachers are not assessment

205

206

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

specialists, they need to work in collaboration to develop inquiry-based units and the appropriate assessments. It may take time for teachers to develop appropriate assessment tools, but when you use them, you will have true alignment among the standards, the instruction, and the assessment.

Case Study: Measuring and Assessing Centripetal Force In this case study, George Wolfe leads his physics students through an inquiry-based lab on calculating centripetal force. The class in this case study contains 18 inner-city students all taking introductory physics as 9th graders. The centripetal force investigation aligns with the Framework (2012): Practices •• •• •• •• •• •• ••

Asking questions Planning and carrying out investigations Analyzing and interpreting data Using mathematical thinking Constructing explanations Engaging in argument from evidence Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information

Crosscutting Concepts •• Cause and Effect: Mechanism and explanation: Events have causes, sometimes simple, sometimes multifaceted. A major activity of science is investigating and explaining causal relationships and the mechanisms by which they are mediated. Core Ideas: Physical Sciences •• PS2.A: Forces and Motion—an understanding of the forces between objects is important for describing how their motions change, as well as predicting stability or instability in systems at any scale.

The Prelab “Think about this,” Mr. Wolfe says to the class. “Where do you sit on a schoolyard merry-go-round if you want to move fastest? Do you sit near the center, in the middle, or out at the edge?” As students raise their hands, Mr. Wolfe waits a few seconds and then calls on Alberto to respond. “Oh, that’s easy,” Alberto shouts out. “Out by the edge.” “That’s right!” Mr. Wolfe responds. “Now, what if you went to an amusement park and went on the Tilt-a-Whirl?” he continues. “Why don’t you fall off even when the ride tips vertically?” As the students look puzzled, Mr. Wolfe explains, “The answer is PHYSICS! In this lab, we want to take what we learned last week about Newton’s three laws of motion and see if Isaac’s ideas about linear motion apply to circular motion.” At that point, Mr. Wolfe reaches behind the demonstration table and brings out a 2-gallon

ASSESSING SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

plastic pail with a long rope attached to the handle. He fills the pail one quarter of the way with water and begins to swing it over his head. “As I swing the pail in a circular motion, what would happen if I let go of the rope? Would it continue to travel in a circle, or would it fly directly outward?” Karen thinks it would continue to travel in a circular path, and Jennifer says it would to fly straight out. “Try it and see what happens,” Jason suggests. “Well, actually,” the teacher responds, “if I let go of the rope, the pail will move in the direction along the tangent to the circular path. I’ll draw a picture on the board to show what it would look like.” Mr. Wolfe continues, “When I whirl the pail of water around in a circle, I must keep pulling or exerting a force on the rope. Is a force being exerted? If so, in what direction?” “Inward,” Yolanda says. “That’s right! This inward pull or force,” Mr. Wolfe continues, “keeps the pail revolving over my head and in a circular path. The string is applying a force toward the center. This force is called centripetal force. Centripetal force means ‘toward the center’ or ‘center seeking.’ As I whirl the pail overhead, there is an inward pull from the rope. Now, I don’t know if Newton ever tried this demonstration back in Lincolnshire, England, but he apparently wondered, like all good scientists do, if the sun exerts a force on the planets. Newton knew that when you exert a force on an object, it accelerates. So he tried to apply this idea to the planets. Newton realized that for a body orbiting in a circular path, the force is directed inward toward the center of the orbit. Because acceleration is a change in velocity (positive or negative), the exerting force is causing a change in the direction of the orbiting object. That is what’s called acceleration. “I now want to demonstrate this in another way. To do this, I’ll need a one-hole rubber stopper, a piece of glass tubing about 15 centimeters long with the ends rounded off, and a length of strong string. I’m first going to take a string and thread it through the glass tubing. Next, I’m going to tie a rubber stopper to one end of the string. As I hold on to the glass tubing in one hand and the string in the other, I’ll twirl the rubber stopper above my head. “Now think about this, is there a force being exerted?” Mr. Wolfe pauses for a while and then answers, “Indeed there is. As the stopper rotates in an orbit, my hand holding the string represents an approximate measurement of centripetal force. I can feel the centripetal force from the circular motion of the rubber stopper, but there is no way to quantitatively measure the amount of force. Can you think of any way we can measure the force?” Judy responds, “Could you use a spring scale?” “Well, what do you think?” he pauses again. “I sure can,” Mr. Wolfe responds, “and I just happen to have one here!” He now attaches a spring scale to the string and has Judy come up and read the scale in Newtons as the rubber stopper whirls in a circle. The scale reads 1.5 Newtons. Mr. Wolfe now poses a question to the class: “Knowing there is a force being exerted by the stopper, what is the relationship between a center-seeking force and the physical aspects of an orbiting stopper? Your task,” he continues, “is to design an investigation to show the relationship between the centripetal force and the properties of the orbiting object. The challenge of this lab is to think like a scientist and design an experiment to fill in this statement.” He then turns to the board and writes—the amount of centripetal force needed to keep a body in orbit depends on the ______________. “By the end of the lab, you should fill in the blank and be able to prove and defend it with the supporting evidence collected during your investigation.” Mr. Wolfe knows he wants students to investigate three variables: the mass, the radius of the circle, and the velocity or speed of the stopper. To get the students

207

208

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

thinking, he prompts the class by posing the following questions: What are some of the factors that influence how much force the string exerts on the stopper? Does the mass of the orbiting object affect the amount of centripetal force? In other words, if I have a bigger mass, would it take more force to keep the object in orbit? Does the distance the orbiting object is from the center affect the force? In other words, how does the radius affect the centripetal force? Does the velocity or speed of the orbiting object affect the force? Or, to say it another way, do I have to hold this harder if the object circulates at a faster rate? After a momentary discussion, students conclude that three variables could affect centripetal force: mass, radius of the orbit, and velocity or speed. It is important to begin this portion of the lesson with a review of how to design an experiment. Mr. Wolfe now prompts the students toward choosing a question around one of the three variables and designing an investigation to answer their question. He asks, “What do you want to measure? What are the variables in the investigation?” Regardless of the variable the students choose, he knows that their data or answers imply a relationship. That means each group should be prepared to produce a graph of the evidence it collects. From past experience, Mr. Wolfe knows he will have to provide a review on plotting data and determining the various relationships that students may get from their data.

Brainstorming and Planning the Investigation At this point, there are six groups of students investigating the three questions. As it turns out, two groups choose to investigate the mass variable, two others choose the radius, and the last two choose the speed or velocity variable. As students design their investigations, they need sufficient time to exchange ideas about their preexisting assumptions about the investigation. Each group must decide which variable will affect the outcome of the experiment and which variables will be held constant. Mr. Wolfe prompts their thinking by asking, “Out of the three variables, how many need to be controlled? How can they be controlled? Think about what you are looking for and how you will analyze the data. What is the relationship between the centripetal force and the variable you chose to investigate? Remember, your graph should show the relationship between the manipulated and the responding variables. You also need to determine which variable goes on the x-axis and the y-axis.” Mr. Wolfe uses this time to circulate among all six groups to review their designs and procedures. He has each group first identify the manipulated (or dependent) variable and the responding (or independent) variable, and then identify the controlled variables. As he rotates to each group, Mr. Wolfe checks the appropriate task on an inquiry monitoring chart he has set up for this lesson and approves each group’s draft of its investigation. He also tells students that as soon as their procedure is approved, they should determine the equipment they will need to carry out the experiment. During its brainstorming session, one of the two mass groups finds the investigation relatively easy to design. The students in the group indicate to Mr. Wolfe that they want to find out how the mass affects the centripetal force. One student reminds the rest of the group that F = ma but questions whether the formula holds true for circular motion as well as linear motion. The mass group then writes a hypothesis to test—as the mass increases, the amount of force will also increase. “What’s the manipulated variable in your experiment?” Mr. Wolfe asks. “The mass,” a student answers. “We’ll change the mass by adding stoppers to the end of the string. We’ll put one stopper on and measure the force for three trials. Then we’ll add a second stopper and measure the force again for another three trials. Then we’ll add

ASSESSING SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

a third stopper and measure the centripetal force again.” The mass group explains that they will keep the radius and the speed constant throughout the investigation. “But now how will you control the velocity?” Mr. Wolfe asks. “Oh, that’s easy,” Michael explains. “We’ll count how many times the stopper spins around in a certain amount of time, then duplicate that in each trial.” Another student adds, “I’ll count how many spins the stopper makes in 10 seconds. Or we can make 10 spins and see how long 10 spins takes. Let’s say we get 10 spins in 10 seconds; once we get that, we want to be sure we spin that with two masses. The speed won’t be perfect, but it’s close enough.” As expected, the radius experiment proves to be a bit more of a challenge. Subsequently, the brainstorming discussions for these groups are significantly different from what occurs in the other groups. One group’s question is “Does the radius of the orbit affect the centripetal force?” This group knows the radius of the orbit will be the manipulated variable, while the mass and velocity of the orbiting stopper will remain the same. “How are you going to change the radius?” Mr. Wolfe asks. “We’ll make the first radius equal to a half meter, the second radius 1 meter, and then the third radius 2 meters,” Amy responds. “We’ll also have the same person spin all three radii.” Mr. Wolfe then asks, “Will you change the number of stoppers?” “No,” Alaina says. “We’ll keep the same number of stoppers for all trials.” “Good! Now, how will you measure centripetal force as the responding variable?” Mr. Wolfe asks. “We’ll attach a spring scale to the string and read the approximate amount of centripetal force in Newtons,” Amy answers. “That’s great!” Mr. Wolfe replies. “Now for the tough part: How will you keep the velocity the same in each trial?” Amy knows that determining the effect of the radius will be tricky because they have to find a way to control the velocity of the orbiting stopper as the radius becomes larger. The students in the radius group know the formula for velocity, V = D/T. They conclude that as the radius increases, so will the circumference or distance of the orbit. As they control for velocity, they must also control the time the stopper takes to make a full orbit. In other words, to control velocity, they must take into consideration the distance and time. As the distance or circumference increases, the time must also increase. What seems like a simple experiment at first is now more difficult. The group now has to determine how to manipulate the radius while controlling mass and speed. After some discussion with Mr. Wolfe, the group remains puzzled on how to control the velocity. They know that radius 1 will result in velocity 1, and that radii 2 and 3 should also equal velocity 1. The dilemma they face, however, is how to increase the radius and keep the velocity the same. After considerable discussion, the group decides that a 1-meter circumference orbiting in 1 second will have the velocity of 1 meter per second. A circumference of 2 meters would have to take 2 seconds to equal the same velocity of 1 meter per second, and a circumference of 3 meters would have to take 3 seconds to equal the velocity of 1 meter per second. To maintain the velocity of 1 meter per second, the group decides to calculate the radii needed to make the three circumferences equal to 1, 2, and 3 meters (.15 m, .32 m, and .48 m, respectively). The group also determines that each of the three radii will require three trials to find the mean. The three students in the radius group now face an interesting situation. Each student has a different hypothesis for the same question. Amy thinks that when the radius increases and the velocity remains the same, the centripetal force will increase, while Holly thinks it will decrease. Cathy, however, knows that the speed will affect the centripetal force, and because the speed in the experiment remains the same, the centripetal force should also remain the same. Rather than discourage their thinking, Mr. Wolfe tells

209

210

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

them to record each of their hypotheses and see which one is correct after the data are collected and graphed. As Mr. Wolfe gets around to the velocity group, he finds its plan is well under way. “What’s your question?” he asks. “What effect does the speed of an orbiting body have on the centripetal force?” answers Alberto. The speed group also has a hypothesis. The members believe, using Newton’s formula of F = ma, that if they increase the speed, the centripetal force will also increase. Mr. Wolfe then says, “But remember, Newton derived the formula for linear motion. What are you determining?” One student responds, “Circular motion. So we want to see if Newton’s law of linear motion holds true for circular motion.” “That’s good thinking!” Mr. Wolfe responds. “How are you going to investigate that? How are you going to control the speed, and how will you keep the radius constant?” Calvin says, “We can either count the number of spins or orbits in 10 seconds or count how long it takes to make 10 spins. Because we know the radius, we can determine the circumference, which equals the distance. We’ll keep the stopper constant and spin the stopper at slow, medium, and fast speeds. We’ll count the number of spins in 10 seconds. Slow will be five spins in 10 seconds, medium is 10 spins in 10 seconds, and fast is 15 spins in 10 seconds. Then we can determine the speed in meters per second. And for each trial, we’ll keep the radius the same at a half meter. We are going to tie a stopper to the string and put the string through the glass rod.” Mr. Wolfe tells the group, “It sounds like you have a good procedure. Good job, guys.”

Carrying Out the Investigation As in any good inquiry, students are constantly challenged by problems and discrepancies. They must learn to work and solve problems as a group. As the groups carry out investigations, some need help in where and how to hold the spring scale, and others need help in where and how to add more masses or stoppers. Some are learning to use timers to record time, and others are learning how to use an electronic balance to measure the mass of the stopper. All the students are encouraged to record results in their science journals. The notes from their science journals will be used later in a formal laboratory write-up. During the investigations, Mr. Wolfe continues to rotate to all the groups and helps the groups work out their problems and ideas. He knows this part of the inquiry takes patience on the part of the teacher as well as the students. He uses the metaphor of a circus performer trying to keep several plates spinning on a long stick at once to describe his role as a facilitator during inquiry lessons. Mr. Wolfe now informs the groups that their oral arguments are due the next day. During that time, using a poster, a trifold display board, or a PowerPoint presentation, students will declare their claim and the supporting evidence they collected during the investigation. They will subsequently share their findings and conclusions with the class during a 5-minute presentation where others can agree, disagree, or express some degree of both. “Be sure to include a graph with a best-fit line of the results,” he tells them. “And remember, a final write-up of your lab report is due next week,” he adds.

Communicating the Results The next day’s class begins with the question, “What are the physical factors of an orbiting body that affect centripetal force?”

ASSESSING SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

Mr. Wolfe starts the lesson by saying, “You will share your results with the class, and we’ll see what you young Newtonians have discovered. Each group will identify its question and hypothesis. Tell us each of the manipulated, responding, and controlled variables, along with a brief overview of the procedure, followed by your concluding claim and the evidence to support your claim. Be ready to defend and justify your reasoning and be open to rebuttals and counterclaims to your findings.” The first mass group states that their evidence leads to the claim that a direct proportional relationship exists when comparing the effect of the mass (m) and the amount of centripetal force (Fc) exerted. Furthermore, they propose the formula that centripetal force is proportional to the mass (Fc:m). Jeremy, a member of the second mass group, then comments, “I agree with their conclusion, because my group’s data confirms the same conclusion.” The two radius groups also had results similar to each other’s. During the rebuttal segment, both groups are challenged as to how they knew they kept the speed of the orbiting stopper constant. Mario, the class skeptic, said, “Although I agree with your findings up to a point, I have trouble accepting that you were able to keep the velocity at a constant speed and at the same time, measure it accurately.” Members of the radius groups admit that it was difficult controlling the velocity; however, they feel their evidence shows there was an inverse relationship between the centripetal force (Fc) and the radius (r). They conclude by claiming, “As the radius increases, the centripetal force decreases and that centripetal force is inversely proportional to the radius.” The radius groups provide results from their investigation and summarize its findings with the formula Fc:1/r. For the last variable, velocity, both groups again show similar results. The groups report that as they kept the number of stoppers (the mass) and radius constant, there was a squared relationship between the centripetal force and the velocity, and they propose the formula Fc:v2. Since everyone agreed that the evidence presented supported their claim, no rebuttals or counterclaims were raised.

Summarizing the Results of the Lesson Mr. Wolfe now wraps up the lesson by combining the mass, radius, and speed findings into a summary. “We now know,” he starts out, “that three physical properties or variables affect centripetal force. When you increase the mass, you increase the centripetal force. When you decrease the radius, you increase the centripetal force. When you increase the velocity, you increase the centripetal force. That is to say, the centripetal force is proportional to the mass and the velocity of the orbiting object. We also know that it is inversely proportional to the radius. We now can say these three proportions are represented by the formulas Fc:m, Fc:1/r, and therefore, Fc:m/r. “Now take out your equation sheets. Do you see a formula that looks like this? Fc = mac and Ac = v2/r. From Newton’s laws, we know that F = ma, so if we combine F = mv2/r from the lab and F = ma from Newton, we determine that Fc = mac. Thus, v2/r = Ac = v2/r. When we combine the results from all the groups, we come up with the formula Fc = mv2/r. You just figured out something that took Newton years to determine.” Mr. Wolfe now wraps up the lesson by announcing, “Before you leave, there’s one more thing we need to do—test your understanding with two math problems. Okay, here’s the first one. A 2-kg cart moves in a circular path with a 10-meter radius and at a constant speed of 20 m/sec. What is the centripetal acceleration (Ac)? Work individually for a minute, and then pair and share your answer with someone next to you. Check if you and your

211

212

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

partner got the same answer. If you didn’t, each of you should explain to the other how you solved the problem and work out a solution. If you are having difficulty, raise your hand and I’ll come around.” (Answer: Ac = v2/r = 202/10 = 400/10 = 40 m/sec.). After a few minutes, when all the students figure out the correct answer, George moves on. “Here’s the second question. It’s a follow-up to the first problem. What if the mass of the cart doubles? Using the formula Fc = M × Ac, what force is needed in each case? As before, work individually for a minute, and then pair up again and share your answer.” (Answer: 2 kg [40 m/sec] = 80 Newtons; 4 kg [40 m/sec] = 160 Newtons). As the bell rings, students start packing up their books for the next class. George reminds the class that there will be a quiz on the centripetal force lab tomorrow. “Be sure to go over your lab notes to prepare. I expect everyone to do well on the test. See you tomorrow!”

Questions for Reflection and Discussion 1. Mr. Wolfe provided two brief math problems to end the lesson. Now it’s your turn to assess students’ understandings. How would you assess the students’ understanding of the centripetal force lab? What kinds of questions would you design to test their understanding? Write three questions or authentic assessments based on the content of the lab. For example, you may choose to write a question where students apply the lab to common, everyday experiences such as the clothes washer during the spin cycle. Using Bloom’s Taxonomy, assign a domain for each of the questions you write. Share your questions with a partner and provide an honest critique of each other’s questions. 2. Van Scotter and Pinkerton (2008) conclude their chapter, “Assessing Science as Inquiry in the Classroom,” by stating, Assessments of inquiry should align with what we know about learning and should be balanced and authentic. That is, they should include all the important features of inquiry, not just those easy to assess. This approach helps ensure that all students acquire the knowledge of and skills regarding scientific inquiry considered important. In turn, this foundation of knowledge should help students participate more effectively in an increasingly complex world. (p. 119) Formulate an argument by agreeing, disagreeing, or by both agreeing and disagreeing with the authors. Make your argument to a colleague. Consider the following starter sentences to frame your argument: a. Van Scotter and Pinkerton state that _____. Although some may object since _______, I agree with the authors’ premise because _______. b. My classroom experiences support/confirm/verify the statements by Van Scotter and Pinkerton in that _______. c. In regard to assessment, Van Scotter and Pinkerton assume that _______. My experience leads me to a different direction. As a high school science teacher, I believe _______. d. I concede that Van Scotter and Pinkerton make a justifiable claim based on recent research; nevertheless, in my classroom _______. e. Van Scotter and Pinkerton claim that _______, and although I see their point, I have mixed feelings. On one hand, I agree that _______, while on the other hand, I insist that _______.

11 Creating a Classroom Culture of Inquiry and Argumentation

W

e are now at the final chapter. The aim of this chapter is (a) to synthesize all the previous chapters as to what we now know about becoming an inquiry- and argument-based teacher and (b) to explore the essential elements in creating, cultivating, and nurturing a culture of creativity and curiosity in the high school science classroom. Earlier in Chapter 4, you were introduced to the 3Rs and how the transformation of classroom practice requires a systemic change connecting a constructivist philosophy about how students learn to the mechanics involved in adopting new teaching strategies. Chapter 7 highlighted the first “R”—Restructuring the science curriculum and lessons, including the modification of traditional labs. Chapter 9 highlighted the second “R”— Retooling the teacher’s instructional strategies and questioning skills through ongoing professional development. And now, Chapter 11 will introduce the third “R”—Reculturing the classroom norms and relationships to foster inquiry and argument-based strategies into a learner-centered environment. To begin the discussion on reculturing the classroom, we need to first define what we mean by culture. In a global sense, culture is a system of shared beliefs, values, customs, behaviors, rites, and rituals that members of a group or a society use (explicitly and implicitly) to govern their survival and with one another. In a larger society, these rites and rituals are passed on from one generation to the next. All of us are certainly familiar with the meaning of the terms such as American culture, Asian American culture, African American culture, multicultural, cultural diversity, and even counterculture. In regard to school culture, one teacher described it as “the unwritten rules and traditions, the norms and the expectations that determine how teachers interact together, how we adhere to school’s goals, and how we interact with students and support their academic achievement.” A second teacher described culture by saying, “It’s the sum total of

213

214

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

the ways we do things around here. School culture shapes the hundreds of decisions and transactions we make every day from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Culture affects everything from our daily instruction to the way we communicate with each other in the faculty lounge to the way we interact with students both in and out of the classroom.” Take a minute now to define your own definition of school culture. Jot down on a piece of paper or in the back of this book what school culture means to you. How would you describe your school’s culture? How similar or different is your statement from the two responses you just read? In observing various school settings, it’s not hard to recognize that each school district in a surrounding area may have its own distinct culture. You may have come to that conclusion if you shared your school culture statement with another person in your class or study group. In some cases, different schools within the same district may have different cultures. Different departments within the same school may have different cultures, and different classrooms even within the same department may have different cultures. For example, science teacher A may have one distinct classroom culture while science teacher B, across the hall, may have an entirely different classroom culture. Science classroom A may have a positive, healthy, professional, constructive, and energetic culture, while classroom B in the same science department may have a negative, toxic, dysfunctional, destructive, or even depressing culture. The differences, in part, often lie with teachers’ views on how learning occurs and what they believe constitutes good teaching. In the business world, there’s a strong link between financial performance and the organizational culture. Take one look at Fortune magazine’s top 100 companies to work for in 2012, and you’ll find such names as Hasbro, Mattel, Microsoft, Nordstrom, Starbucks, and Zappos. With all these companies, you’ll find a core commitment to excellence and aspects of a culture where employees (a) share in the decision-making process, (b) work in collaborative and self-managing teams, and (c) put the needs of the customer first. Likewise, in the education world, there’s a strong link between student performance and a school’s culture. The research is quite clear that schools that demonstrate a healthy culture tend to be more productive in terms of student achievement. These days, many school districts are learning valuable lessons from the top 100 companies. In shifting our focus back to the classroom, a culture of inquiry and argumentation incorporates an atmosphere where there is •• •• •• •• •• •• ••

openness to asking questions and seeking answers, a commitment to critical-thinking and metacognitive skills, ownership and self-directed learning, collaboration, a willingness to learn new ideas, celebration for student success, and respect for others’ points of view.

Reagan, Case, and Brubacher (2000) may have put it best when they argued that a culture of inquiry, in short, entails not merely teachers engaged in inquiry but teachers and others collaboratively and collegially seeking to understand better and thus improve aspects of the schooling experience. For a culture of inquiry to exist and be maintained in a school, an ongoing commitment to valuing curiosity, mutual respect, and support among teachers and between teachers and administrators, a willingness to try new ideas and practices, and the ability to remain open to the unforeseen and unpredicted are required. (p. 43)

CREATING A CLASSROOM CULTURE OF INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

Creating a classroom culture of inquiry requires a systemic reorganization. Such reorganizing should comprise many of the following aspects: •• Nurturing relationships and building trust between teacher and students, as well as student to student •• Encouraging creativity where students take risks •• Having students take responsibility for planning and deciding their own work •• Providing students with choice within a framework of learning •• Giving students increasing responsibility for deciding how to plan their investigations, propose possible solutions, gather and organize evidence to support or refute their propositions, and make sense of their results in formulating and communicating explanations through scientific argumentation •• Fostering a sense of community and belongingness

The Environment of a Traditional Classroom To understand the contrast in classroom cultures, let’s differentiate the environments between traditional and inquiry-based classrooms. Traditional high school science classrooms usually look different from inquiry-based classrooms. In a traditional classroom setting, students often sit in straight rows of desks and learn through rote memorization. Students attentively listen to the teacher standing in the front of the room imparting information, while compliantly taking notes. The recitation may be followed by a question-and-answer period in which students are presented with review questions that summarize the lesson and evaluate the students’ understanding of the concept just presented. The lesson is structured around “teacher talk” and student responses. In this case, a single textbook usually guides the teacher’s lesson and provides additional readings and questions for homework. In teacher-centered classrooms, demonstrations are often used by the teacher to arouse interest or reinforce a concept that was previously introduced. A demonstration enables the teacher to model a particular phenomenon and provide all the students with an observable experience from which an explanation or a discussion may follow. Discussions are also an important aspect of traditional science classrooms; however, in teacher-centered classrooms, the line of communication is too often an interaction between the teacher and one student at a time. Toward the end of a unit, the teacher provides the students with a cookbook-type laboratory to verify that the information presented on previous days’ lectures is correct. At the end of the lesson or unit, student understanding is evaluated through an objective-type test containing true/false or multiple-choice questions. The description above may be a bit exaggerated, but it serves to describe one extreme end of the spectrum. That is not to say that traditional classrooms are any better or worse than inquiry-based classrooms; it just means the behaviors of the students and the teacher, as well as the appearance of the physical environment, are different. There are instances, such as (a) the first week of school, (b) when making an expository presentation through direct instruction, or (c) when presenting an imposing amount of information in a short period of time, when a more teacher-centered classroom is preferred. Additionally, traditional classrooms are more appropriate when the teacher is trying to establish classroom order and management. Traditional classrooms may also be favored by students who are auditory and visual learners and for those who prefer a more structured setting.

215

216

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

Despite the preference for inquiry-based teaching in the national standards, we still find a sizable percentage of high school science classrooms to be largely teacher-directed. The reasons for this may rest in the relative ease of expository teaching, the numerous content standards and high-stakes assessments that teachers face, as well as their previously held beliefs about what comprises good teaching and learning.

The Environment of an Inquiry-Based Classroom In contrast to traditional settings, inquiry-based classrooms are quite different. They are often described as student- or learner-centered. In inquiry classrooms, we usually find a culture that fosters creativity and collaboration. The atmosphere promotes an effective learning situation by making the students feel that their teacher and peers value their ideas, thoughts, and opinions. The classroom provides a positive socialization promoting active involvement along with inter- and intrapersonalization. Some of the characteristics of an inquiry-centered classroom consist of the following:   1. “What if . . .” and “I wonder . . .” questions posted throughout the room   2. Concept maps and graphic organizers displayed on the walls   3. Evidence of student work displayed and celebrated throughout the room   4. Students’ desks arranged in a “U” shape or in groups of two, three, or four   5. Separate learning stations for extension investigations, as well as individual and small group work   6. A collection of fiction and nonfiction books, science magazines and journals, and other primary sources of information on the shelves   7. A box or a crate for student portfolios and reflection journals   8. Posters and display boards summarizing the claims made and evidences cited from oral arguments and explanations   9. Out-of-the-way supply areas where materials are readily available in bins or containers with additional areas set aside for storing projects and extended investigations 10. Videotaping equipment available for recording students’ scientific arguments and analyzing students’ performance 11. Computer resources available for accessing Internet sources and containing supplemental software to review or reinforce science topics 12. Classroom sets or collections of multiple textbooks for in-class usage and/or student sign-out

Students in an Inquiry-Based Classroom As in the classroom culture, there are many ways students in an inquiry-based classroom demonstrate different behaviors and habits of mind from their counterparts in

CREATING A CLASSROOM CULTURE OF INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

traditional classrooms. In an inquiry-based science classroom, high school students do the following: •• Enjoy posing questions and demonstrate a desire to learn •• Show an interest and imagination in science by acting as researchers/investigators and viewing themselves as scientists •• Engage in diligent investigations from their self-generated questions •• Reflect on and take responsibility for their individual learning • • Persist in asking questions to clarify and confirm the accuracy of their understandings •• Work respectfully and communicate in collaborative groups •• Utilize higher-order thinking skills to solve problems and make judgments about their work •• Consider skepticism and alternative models or points of view •• Use claims and unbiased evidence to form explanations and arguments •• Connect new knowledge to prior understandings •• Make decisions as to how to communicate their work •• Demonstrate their science understandings and abilities in a variety of forms •• Act as “reflective friends” through peer evaluation to seek other opinions and assess the strengths and limitations of their work •• Demonstrate confidence in their learning, take risks, and persevere

Students Acting as Researchers Like the heart pumping blood, commitment, curiosity, and imagination pump questions through a learner’s thought process. When students act as researchers, they take on a new role in an inquiry-based classroom. Action research leads students to use integrated process skills such as identifying variables, clarifying assumptions, writing hypotheses, designing investigations, constructing data tables and graphs, analyzing relationships between variables, and justifying and defending their findings and claims. Having students act as researchers is a challenging endeavor for both the students and the teacher. For students to take on this new role, teachers must assume a new role too. Teachers must believe that students have the skills and interest to carry out their own investigations and generate their own ideas. When students act as researchers, they start taking responsibility for their own learning. That means students are given the opportunity to raise their own questions on a topic of their choice. Many students prefer answering their own questions to solving someone else’s problems. It also means students can make decisions about their own work: how they will collect data, how they will organize the data they collect, and how they will communicate their findings to the rest of the class. By planning and designing their inquiries, students begin to use higher-level thinking skills, such as analyzing and evaluating, to guide the design and course of their investigations. Teachers will also find that they need to provide fewer answers and more support to students. This support may include guiding the students to an Internet location to search on a particular topic, suggesting they call a local expert on the topic, or recommending primary sources for the students to review. According to the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996), to challenge students to accept and share responsibility for their own work, teachers [should] make it clear that each student must take responsibility for his or her work. Teachers also create opportunities for [students’] own learning, individually and as members of groups. Teachers do so by supporting student ideas

217

218

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

and questions and by encouraging students to pursue them. Teachers give individual students active roles in the design and implementation of investigations, in the work with their peers, and in student assessment of their own work. (p. 36)

Students Working in Groups In the real world, scientists and engineers work predominantly in groups and less often as individual, isolated researchers. Therefore, the collaborative nature of integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics should be mirrored and strongly reinforced by recurrent group work in the high school classroom—giving students ample opportunities to share the responsibility for learning with each other. There are instances however, when students should work individually and other times when collaborative group work is most appropriate. This decision is often left to the discretion of the teacher, depending on (a) the objective and the complexity of the task, (b) safety concerns, (c) the availability of materials, and (d) the particular learning style of the individual student. In most situations, group work can help students learn from each other, share and challenge their ideas, and distribute the work in an equitable fashion. This way, students learn to construct and negotiate knowledge together and build positive peer relationships. Group work also allows students to build self-confidence while working collaboratively to complete a common goal. Having students work in groups, however, always requires consideration of gender and cultural equity, as well as the interests, needs, and abilities of the group members. In high school settings, group work often becomes louder than traditional seat-time work. Because students are expected to communicate, deliberate, and move about the room while working in groups, classroom management techniques become essential. Students need and want rules of conduct to be established. They want to know the limits of classroom behavior. Problems often occur in inquiry-based classrooms when the teacher fails to effectively communicate group work expectations. The teacher can enhance the effectiveness of classroom rules by having students participate in deciding what rules need to be enforced while doing a scientific investigation. The students can agree to the rules and post them in the classroom. Classes can consider adopting rules of conduct by citing the positive behaviors that are expected (starting with the word Do) rather than rules written in a negative tone (starting with the word Don’t).

Students Utilizing Higher-Level Thinking Skills In a community of inquirers, utilizing exploration and discourse strategies stimulates students to think critically about the data and evidence accumulated during their inquiry. This motivates students to analyze and synthesize the data and to make judgments and evaluations concerning their claims, evidence, and explanations. These types of thinking skills are far superior in developing scientific literacy than the lower-level, knowledgetype recall questions often repeatedly posed to students in traditional classrooms, where the memorization of science factoids is valued. In contrast, as students experience inquiry investigations, they use critical-thinking skills that cause them to reflect on their work and pose logical arguments to defend their conclusions.

Students Showing Interest in Science “Why do we have to learn this stuff anyway?” one 12th-grade girl asked in her physics class. “Because,” the teacher responded, “it’s going to be on the test.” Have you been

CREATING A CLASSROOM CULTURE OF INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

asked this question? It seems every teacher has, many times in his or her career. From the point of view of the student, what does the question mean? Does it mean she doesn’t like physics? Does it mean she doesn’t like this particular lesson? Or does it mean she doesn’t understand what she is expected to do? All we know at this point is that the student might not see the relevance of the content she’s expected to learn. Posing problems of importance and relevance is an integral aspect of inquiry and constructivist teaching. That does not mean that in inquiry classrooms the student decides what he or she wants to learn and when. Nor does it mean that we have to wait until the student wants to learn about Newtonian physics before the topic can be presented. It does mean, however, that the teacher mediates relevance by engaging students in meaningful problem-solving investigations. According to Brooks and Brooks (1999), “the inquiring teacher mediates the classroom environment in accordance with both the primary concept she has chosen for the class inquiry and her growing understanding of students emerging interests and cognitive abilities within the concept” (p. 380). Making learning meaningful is another central theme in inquiry-based learning. Brooks and Brooks go on to say, It’s unfortunate that much of what we seek to teach our students is of little interest to them at that particular point in their lives. Curriculums and syllabi developed by publishers or state-level specialists are based on adult notions of what students of different ages need to know. Even when the topics are of interest to students, the recommended methodologies for teaching the topics sometimes are not. Little wonder, then, why more of those magnificent moments don’t occur. (p. 106) In inquiry-based classrooms, students are engaged in investigations that interest them. As a result, students demonstrate open-mindedness and curiosity, and they gain an appreciation for and positive attitude toward science as well. Seeing themselves working as researchers and scientists does much to promote interest in science and encourages students to pursue further science and engineering courses in the years ahead.

Teachers in an Inquiry-Based Classroom The teacher’s ABCs (attitudes, behaviors, and competencies) are paramount in inquirybased classrooms. They set the stage for teaching and active learning. When observing inquiry-based high school teachers, we often see styles of presentation, organization, questioning skills, and even body language that differ from those observed in traditional settings. There are probably 100 or more behaviors that can describe an inquiry- and argument-based high school science teacher. The following is a list of just 40 attitudes, behaviors, and competencies that often accompany inquiry-based teaching. In high school classrooms, inquiry science teachers   1. use A Framework for K−12 Science Education (2012) and the Next Generation Science Standards (as well as statewide standards) to guide their long-range instructional plans;  2. select learning experiences that align with the national standards and the students’ interests and abilities;   3. create a classroom culture that encourages positive scientific attitudes and habits of mind;

219

220

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

  4. provide opportunities for metacognitive strategies;   5. stimulate and nurture students’ curiosity;   6. limit the use of lecturing and direct instruction to occasions when the lesson cannot be taught through hands-on or inquiry-based instruction;   7. demonstrate flexibility by balancing and mediating their preplanned lessons and questions with the activities and directions prompted by students’ questions;  8. assess students’ prior knowledge at the start of a lesson or unit of study and adjust instruction accordingly;  9. use students’ prior knowledge as a basis for introducing new concepts and accommodating the lesson plan based on misconceptions; 10. make learning relevant and meaningful by taking student interests into account and basing lessons on students’ prior suppositions; 11. use counterintuitive demonstrations and discrepant events to pose contradictions and challenge students’ previously held conceptions; 12. use inquiries and investigations to “anchor” new information to previously held knowledge; 13. initiate classroom dialogue and discourse by posing essential or starter questions, offering prompts, and demonstrating thought-provoking discrepant events throughout the lesson; 14. models inquisitive actions by posing prompting and probing questions as well as asking questions that require higher-level and critical-thinking skills; 15. use wait-time techniques appropriately and do not interrupt students in the middle of their questions and/or answers; 16. rephrase student questions and responses so students can begin to answer their own questions; 17. plan lessons utilizing the 5E Learning Cycle; 18. refrain from divulging answers and pose prompts to clarify students’ questions; 19. say “thank you” or “great answer” in response to student contributions and give positive reinforcement for student contributions and exemplary work; 20. ask follow-up questions to a student’s answer rather than saying “okay” or just repeating the answer; 21. maintain appropriate classroom management during hands-on investigations by displaying rules in a positive sense, providing expectations and structure, and creating a safe and well-organized room; 22. establish everyday routines for group interaction and when retrieving and returning materials; 23. arrange students’ desks for collaborative work in small groups; 24. focus the lesson on engaging and relevant problem-solving situations; 25. move about the classroom and rotate among the small groups throughout the lesson;

CREATING A CLASSROOM CULTURE OF INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

26. encourage students to design and carry out their own investigations; 27. kneel to make on-level, eye-to-eye contact when speaking to students in smallgroup settings; 28. value students’ responses and view wrong answers as an “open door” to their naive conceptions or misconceptions; 29. keep students on-task by having them support and debate their data, evidence, and conclusions; 30. use instructional classroom time effectively and efficiently by beginning the lesson on time and using the entire period for instructional purposes, not as time to do homework; 31. integrate science content with process skills and problem-solving strategies, as well as technology, engineering, mathematics, and other subjects; 32. act as a facilitator, mediator, initiator, and coach while modeling the behaviors of inquiry, curiosity, and wonder; 33. use primary sources of information rather than, or in conjunction with, commercially published textbooks; 34. encourage communication skills such as speaking and listening; 35. moderate classroom discussions so all students can share their points of view; 36. encourage students to use concept maps, graphic organizers, and drawings of models to explain and demonstrate newly acquired knowledge; 37. assess student performance in a variety of forms; 38. monitor student progress continuously on a daily basis and assist students in monitoring their own progress; 39. initiate and orchestrate discourse and scientific argumentation 40. keep current in teaching methods by joining a professional organization, such as    the National Science Teachers Association (www.nsta.org)    the National Association of Biology Teachers (www.nabt.org)    the National Earth Science Teachers Association (www.nestanet.org)    the American Chemical Society (www.acs.org)    the American Association for Physics Teachers (www.aapt.org) and reading appropriate journals, such as    The Science Teacher    The American Biology Teacher    The Earth Scientist    ChemMatters    The Physics Teacher You can probably think of another 10 attitudes, behaviors, and competencies to round out the list to an even 50. If you are reading alone or working with others on this section, now would be a good time to make any additions to the list. Go back and reflect on the habits of mind that were introduced in Chapter 1. Think how these dispositions are an essential ingredient in cultivating and nurturing a culture of inquiry and argumentation.

221

222

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

A Classroom Culture That Fosters Inquiry and Argumentation Much to the consternation of those unfamiliar with inquiry, developing one’s inquiry-based teaching techniques is more than just searching for and then implementing an inquiry activity in the classroom. That results in what one colleague of mine calls “an inquiry event.” Becoming an inquiry-based teacher is far more than finding an inquiry activity to do for Monday’s lab period. As you read in Chapter 4, becoming an inquiry-based teacher involves the 3Rs: Restructuring, Retooling, and Reculturing. Up until now, we have addressed restructuring and retooling. Now it’s time to address the final R, reculturing. Reculturing implies creating, cultivating, and nurturing an environment of inquiry where the classroom norms and relationships foster a learner-centered environment, and where questions, inquisitiveness, and risk-taking are valued. In the education world, where so many bureaucratic rules and regulations seem to be placed upon classroom teachers, providentially each teacher can create his or her own classroom culture. Thus it is within the influence of the teacher to create an active, healthy, creative culture—or a passive one. Stepping away from the status quo and transforming the culture of teaching and learning is, however, a challenging task. It takes a strategic plan and concrete solutions to address the gap between your present state and your desired state. There are no seismic changes here. Change in teaching can be glacially slow compared to the digital technology we plug our earbuds into these days. What is exciting, however, is that we have the ability to create a classroom culture that stresses core values of inquiry and collaboration, coupled with excellence in performance. Teachers have the ability to create a sense of community, where they model the spirit and nature of science and act as a coexplorer learning sideby-side with students. Teachers have the ability to be agents of change where the ownership of learning shifts from the teacher to the student and where students take control of and responsibility for their own learning. And most of all, teachers have the ability—and the professional responsibility—to infuse scientific literacy and 21st-century skills into their lessons. Creating a culture of inquiry involves six basic steps: 1. Assessing your present and desired states 2. Expressing a clear macrovision for instructional change 3. Developing an action plan of professional development to bridge the gap between the present and desired states 4. Forming a support system 5. Translating new strategies learned into practice 6. Monitoring change toward inquiry and argumentation Since we addressed aspects of steps two through five in previous chapters, we will focus this section on the first and sixth steps: assessing and monitoring. To assess and monitor one’s ability to teach through inquiry and argumentation, the list of Seven Segments of Scientific Inquiry will come back into play. Figure 11.1 offers a mechanism to measure the frequency of each of the subsets and behaviors of the Seven Segments. By placing a check (a) in the appropriate column for the range of number of times you presently provide opportunities for students to engage in each of the behaviors, you easily

CREATING A CLASSROOM CULTURE OF INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

identify your present state of teaching through inquiry. Then, by placing a star () in the column for the range of number of times you desire to provide opportunities for students to engage in each of the behaviors, you easily identify your desired state of teaching through inquiry. Looking at the difference in the marks provided for each behavior can lead to the type of professional development you need to close the gap between the two states. Figure 11.1   Assessing the Seven Segments of Scientific Inquiry

How Often Do Students . . . 

0–1 Times a Year

2–4 Times a Year

5–7 Times a Year

8+ Times a Year

1. The Question: Exploring a Phenomenon Observe a phenomenon or discrepant event (or engage in an open-ended exploration) Assess their prior knowledge about the phenomenon by asking, “What do I know about what’s happening?” Assess others’ prior knowledge about the phenomenon by asking, “What do others know about what’s happening?” 2. The Question: Focusing on a Question Make a list of several questions to investigate from the observations made Choose one (or the first) question to investigate Scrutinize the question by asking, “Is the question investigatable?” Modify the question, if necessary Seek initial assumptions and evidence through additional observations of the phenomenon Clarify the question by asking, “Before designing an investigation, do I completely understand the question?” Rewrite the question, if necessary Write the question on a sentence strip and post 3. The Procedure: Planning the Investigation Decide what data need to be collected to answer the question Identify the variables and constants needed to investigate the question

(Continued)

223

224

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

How Often Do Students . . .  Design a controlled experiment or investigation to answer the question Identify the materials needed to carry out the investigation Draw an illustration of the materials and set up for the investigation Propose one or more hypotheses to test a tentative explanation or predict an outcome of the investigation Design a chart or table to organize the data to be collected during the investigation Identify safety rules to follow during the investigation 4. The Procedure: Conducting the Investigation Carry out the investigation Collect appropriate data Record data in the proper column of the chart or table Graph the results, if applicable Redesign and retry the investigation, if necessary 5. The Results: Analyzing the Data and Evidence Interpret and make meaning from the data Determine if the data is biased or flawed in any way Seek patterns and relationships among the variables Draw an initial conclusion based on the data Analyze the data and evidence to support, modify, or refute the previously stated hypothesis or prediction Make a claim based on the evidence 6. The Results: Constructing New Knowledge Form an explanation (or model) from the claim and supporting evidence Relate the explanation (or model) to other existing models Reflect upon and make meaning as to their newly acquired knowledge Connect new knowledge to their prior knowledge and the knowledge of others

0–1 Times a Year

2–4 Times a Year

5–7 Times a Year

8+ Times a Year

CREATING A CLASSROOM CULTURE OF INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

0–1 Times a Year

How Often Do Students . . . 

2–4 Times a Year

5–7 Times a Year

8+ Times a Year

7. The Results: Communicating New Knowledge Choose a means to communicate their explanation (or model) and findings to others (e.g., oral report, poster, PowerPoint, written report) Discuss their results and conclusions with others Use scientific reasoning skills to link their claim and supporting evidence Engage in scientific argumentation, allowing others to critique their investigation and claim and provide counterclaims to their findings Make modifications to their explanation or model, if needed Consider follow-up questions to investigate

Figure 11.2 offers a similar mechanism for measuring the frequency of each of the subsets and behaviors of the Seven Segments highlighted in a particular lab. The numbers in the upper right corner correspond to the number of labs for the course. The sheet can accommodate 10 labs. You can make additional copies for labs 11–20 or as many labs as you provide during the school year. Say for example, Ms. Jackson, a 10th-grade earth science teacher, reviews the first lab of the school year on testing and identifying mineral samples. She places a check (a) in the first column for each of the behaviors highlighted for that particular investigation. This way she identifies which inquiry skills she is having students engage in for that investigation. For the second and subsequent labs, she repeats the procedure and observes which behaviors are presented and which skills still need to be emphasized in future inquiries. Ms. Jackson uses the monitoring chart to appraise how frequently she is involving students in scientific inquiry and moving toward establishing a classroom culture of inquiry.

Figure 11.2   Monitoring the Seven Segments of Scientific Inquiry How Often Do Students . . .

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1. The Question: Exploring a Phenomenon Observe a phenomenon or discrepant event (or engage in an open-ended exploration) Assess their prior knowledge about the phenomenon by asking, “What do I know about what’s happening?”

(Continued)

225

226

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

(Continued) How Often Do Students . . . Assess others’ prior knowledge about the phenomenon by asking, “What do others know about what’s happening?” 2. The Question: Focusing on a Question Make a list of several questions to investigate from the observations made Choose one (or the first) question to investigate Scrutinize the question by asking, “Is the question investigatable?” Modify the question, if necessary Seek initial assumptions and evidence through additional observations of the phenomenon Clarify the question by asking, “Before designing an investigation, do I completely understand the question?” Rewrite the question, if necessary Write the question on a sentence strip and post 3. The Procedure: Planning the Investigation Decide what data need to be collected to answer the question Identify the variables and constants needed to investigate the question Design a controlled experiment or investigation to answer the question Identify the materials needed to carry out the investigation Draw an illustration of the materials and set up for the investigation Propose one or more hypotheses to test a tentative explanation or predict an outcome of the investigation Design a chart or table to organize the data to be collected during the investigation Identify safety rules to follow during the investigation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

CREATING A CLASSROOM CULTURE OF INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

How Often Do Students . . .

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

4. The Procedure: Conducting the Investigation Carry out the investigation Collect appropriate data Record data in the proper column of the chart or table Graph the results, if applicable Redesign and retry the investigation, if necessary 5. The Results: Analyzing the Data and Evidence Interpret and make meaning from the data Determine if the data are biased or flawed in any way Seek patterns and relationships among the variables Draw an initial conclusion based on the data Analyze the data and evidence to support, modify, or refute the previously stated hypothesis or prediction Make a claim based on the evidence 6. The Results: Constructing New Knowledge Form an explanation (or model) from the claim and supporting evidence Relate the explanation (or model) to other existing models Reflect upon and make meaning as to their newly acquired knowledge Connect new knowledge to their prior knowledge and the knowledge of others 7. The Results: Communicating New Knowledge Choose a means to communicate their explanation (or model) and findings to others (e.g., oral report, poster, PowerPoint, written report) Discuss their results and conclusions with others

(Continued)

227

228

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

(Continued) How Often Do Students . . .

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Use scientific reasoning skills to link their claim and supporting evidence Engage in scientific argumentation, allowing others to critique their investigation and claim and provide counterclaims to their findings Make modifications to their explanation or model, if needed Consider follow-up questions to investigate

Ms. Jackson is mindful of the necessity to frequently monitor her instruction as well as her students’ progress. She, like thousands of other inquiry-based science teachers, is committed to using the observations collected as formative assessments to modify her lessons and make adjustments to meet the needs of all her students. In this last case study, we will read about one teacher’s reflection on his 30-year career; a career that modeled the desire to make a difference and exhibited the decision to differentiate instruction to meet the diversity of his students.

Reflecting on a Teaching Career Research suggests that highly effective teachers of science plan programs for their students by 1. selecting science content and adapting and designing curricula to meet the interests, knowledge, understanding, abilities, and experience of students; 2. recognizing and responding to student diversity and encouraging all students to participate fully in science learning; and 3. displaying and demanding respect for diverse ideas, skills, and experiences of all students. Although most of the case studies in this book focus on the “how to” or mechanics of a lesson, it is equally important to consider the “affective side,” or meaning, of a lesson and address the reasons why most of us chose to enter the teaching profession—to make a difference in this world. Loosely translated, for many of us, that means to educate young adolescents and to develop their abilities to appreciate the natural world. Here’s how one high school science teacher made that happen.

The Story of Mr. Baker It was a rainy Friday afternoon in the fall of 1995, when Ronald Baker got a call from a woman he did not even know. The students had all gone home for the weekend, and

CREATING A CLASSROOM CULTURE OF INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

Ron gazed out over a sea of empty desks, enjoying one of those few quiet moments when all the noise and goings-on from teaching seemed to fade away at the prospect of a 3-day weekend. “Hello, Mr. Baker,” the woman said. “This is Dr. Carol Bailey from Suffolk College. I’m the supervisor for student teaching placement, and I have a request from one of our science-education majors to do a student teaching experience with you. I know,” she continued, “Suffolk is quite a ways from your school, and we usually don’t place student teachers that far from campus, but this is a special request. A young man, if I can find his name here—yes, Miguel Sanchez—requested a placement specifically with you.” Ron thought to himself—the name sounded familiar. Could it be the same Miguel Sanchez he had in his third-period science class almost 8 years ago? In an instant, Ron recalled his first year of teaching as if it were yesterday. Having graduated from college in December, his teacher certification in hand, Ron quickly discovered that all the good teaching jobs were filled in September. He was offered, however, a substitute teaching position that would last the rest of the school year. Eager to start his science teaching career and naive enough to think he was going to make a difference in the lives of high schoolers, Ron accepted the position and found himself, a week later, in West Hill High School, Room 313. In looking back, he’d describe that first year of teaching as pure hell. Ron was assigned five classes and four preps: one 11th-grade general chemistry class for noncollege-bound students, two 9th-grade general science classes, one environmental science elective for seniors (an easy course for those needing an additional science credit), and one infamous class of “Consumer Science” for students who had accumulated no science credits toward high school graduation. He soon discovered that he was the third teacher these students had had since September. The previous two were driven out the door, and in the eyes of the students, he was soon to become number three. The first week, bound and determined to succeed, Ron started out with the “don’t smile until Christmas” attitude. Unfortunately, Christmas had occurred the previous month, and it was the beginning of the second semester. He thought to himself, “Could I not smile until Easter?” For each of the classes, Ron followed the same approach: be stern and maintain classroom discipline. “Be fair and firm,” his college methods professors had told him. He decided that he would keep instruction simple and to the point in his class lectures. After all, he had a lot of catching up to do because the students had not learned very much from their previous teachers. Despite his noble intentions, Ron almost gave up by the February mid-winter break. He felt he had failed miserably. And though the chemistry, general science, and environmental classes were starting to show some improvement, consumer science was a disaster. One student started each day’s class by shouting out from the back of the room, “Hey, Mr. Baker, why do we have to learn this stuff? This is ‘bambino science.’” That student was Miguel Sanchez. Mr. Sanchez, as Ron referred to him, was constantly in trouble. By February, Miguel had been suspended for 3 days for insubordination to his English teacher, one day for smoking in the boys’ lavatory, and one day for skipping seventhperiod social studies class. In short, school was a struggle for Miguel, but he still managed to pass from grade to grade, making low Cs. Miguel’s teachers labeled him as a troubled student. His classmates often referred to him as “loco.” But Ron knew Miguel was not dumb; he was just another high school kid trying to struggle through the awkward years of being a teenager. In fact, it was because of Miguel that Ron decided he had to do something different to get through to his students. “It is my responsibility,” he thought, “to find ways to make their classes meaningful and

229

230

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

assure them that I am in it for the long haul.” That meant coming back next Monday, the Monday after that, and all the rest of the Mondays until the end of the school year. Ron became determined not to abandon them like the other teachers had. Ron got rid of the book he was using for consumer science and decided to make class relevant to the students’ daily lives. After all, there were no age-appropriate textbooks for high school students like Miguel who were one to two grade levels below in reading. “Why not,” he thought, “teach the course from a practical, problem-solving, and inquirybased approach?” Having shared his concerns with Miss Moore, another West Hill science teacher, Ron began to find out about inquiry- and argument-based teaching. From her undergraduate college days, she gave Ron a classic book, Inquiry Techniques for Teaching Science (1968), by William Romey, and several more recent articles from The Science Teacher. It was then that Ron decided that his classes would no longer be solely lectures and verification labs. He started having students do their own investigations and guided them through discovery-based experiences. To become more proficient, Ron realized that he needed additional coursework, so he enrolled in a course on experiencebased learning. The second change centered on Miguel. Ron asked Dr. Austin, the school psychologist, to administer a screening test for Miguel’s reading skills. They later found out that Miguel was not slow at all; in fact, he was quite smart. Unfortunately, Miguel had dyslexia—he wasn’t able to see words as they are. To Miguel, some letters looked backward, and some looked reversed. “He’s a smart, curious kid with a phenomenal desire to see how things work,” Dr. Austin wrote in her report. Upon further examination, they discovered that in 3rd grade, Miguel was assigned to a special-education class for children who are learning disabled. A year later, despite extra help, he still couldn’t decipher a sentence. The school psychologist explained to Miguel that his brain wasn’t impaired, just different. Several months later, Miguel made it through consumer science with a B, and Ron Baker made it through his first year at West Hill. Ron was more determined than ever that inquiry-based teaching would become his passion. His goal for the next year would be to take his lessons one step further and integrate argument-based practices into the students’ investigations. After all, he knew the kids in consumer science were good at arguing with each other and always had an opinion to express. On graduation day, Miguel came up to Ron and handed him a note. Ron put it in his pocket, and they said their good-byes. As Ron drove home from the graduation ceremony, he remembered the note and pulled it from his sports jacket. Ron steered his dented 1970 green Ford Fairlane to the side of the road and read the letter. Dear Mr. Baker, the letter began. Thank you for being my teacher and having patience with me. Because of you, I was able to pass science and graduate from high school. I’m learning to live with my dyslexia. I know that I have to fight it for the rest of my life. I am sorry I was so much trouble in your class. You made learning fun and taught me how to inquire and think for myself. Maybe someday I’ll be a teacher just like you. Your friend, Miguel. After graduation, some of the teachers at West Hill High School heard Miguel had joined the Army. Nonetheless, Ron didn’t hear about him again until that rainy Friday afternoon when the woman from the college called. Miguel had grown up. It was true—he had joined the Army, and upon an honorable discharge, he had enrolled in a local 2-year college where he majored in sociology and received an associate degree. Then Miguel transferred to Suffolk College and enrolled in a science education program. In his senior year at Suffolk, thanks to the unusual

CREATING A CLASSROOM CULTURE OF INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

long-distance placement, he returned to West Hill, renewed his friendship with Mr. Baker, and successfully completed his student teaching. This time, however, it was not from a seat in the back of the room. This time, it was Miguel up in front of the entire class, and now it was Ron’s turn to shape this energetic young teacher into the inquiry-based teacher Miguel had inspired Ron to become 8 years earlier. The September following his student teaching experience, he was offered a teaching position at West Hill and became a member of the science department, where he has remained for 30 years. For the first two years of his probationary status, Ron acted as Miguel’s mentor. He helped Miguel refine and sharpen his skills in becoming an excellent inquiry-based teacher. This past June, after 33 years of teaching and 15 years as science department chairperson, Mr. Baker decided to retire. It gave Ron great pleasure when Miguel made the introductory greeting at his retirement party. What a wonderful honor it was, Ron thought that day, that no finer gift could a teacher be given than to have the opportunity to see that the things we, as teachers, value result in a legacy of something important to us. Surrounded by family, friends, and devoted and talented teachers, Ron reflected on the pleasure of spending his career with Miguel Sanchez, his dearest student, his colleague, and his friend. Ron remarked how their personal and professional relationship grew like the rings of a tree. Minutes later, Miguel presented Ron with a plaque. On it were inscribed the following words: The average teacher tells us. The good teacher tells us and explains why. The better teacher shows us and explains why. But the greatest teacher inspires us to inquire for ourselves. You were always a great inspiration to us. As Ron walked up to the podium to accept his plaque, he was overcome with humility and pride. He and Miguel smiled at each other and embraced. Neither of them could hold back the tears any longer. During his retirement speech, Ron reminisced about the great joy he had received being a high school science teacher and how that fateful first year inspired him to transform his teaching style and pursue questions that engage students in learning.

Final Thoughts: Your Legacy In the preface, we began by contrasting the meaning and mechanics of inquiry. That same notion may also be the best way to bring us full circle to close this chapter and end this book. As you embark on a teaching career, you are actually laying the foundation of your legacy as a teacher. As with Mr. Baker, such a legacy is built over time from the actions and interactions you have throughout your career. If you are new to the profession, you may not yet fully appreciate how your values and beliefs about what constitutes good teaching and learning will dictate how others will assess the impact you had on their lives. Retirement may seem light years away. But when retirement comes and you look back over a career of teaching, how will you judge yourself? How will others judge you? For some teachers, their legacy will be marked by mediocrity. Others will leave behind a legacy of passion for excellence; excellence that is exemplified by the students they helped to become autonomous learners, able to think for themselves. It all begins with you. You have the capability to influence adolescent minds and prepare the next

231

232

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

generation of scientifically literate citizens. It is my hope that you will choose to shape your legacy through the skillful use of scientific inquiry and argumentation—affording students the opportunity to engage in questioning, skepticism, and wonder. Teaching high school science is an awesome responsibility. Take your responsibility seriously. Teach with excitement and enjoyment. Your destiny as an educator is yours to determine. You are the architect of your own legacy. Just as you use inquiry and argumentation to challenge your students to critically think for themselves, so too use it to challenge yourself to inquire within. Experiment. Pursue your hunches. Trust your instincts. Oh, for the joy of inquiry! Without challenging themselves professionally, teachers become content to recycle too many old but comfortable lesson plans and turn a jaundiced eye to suggestions for change, to stretch, to search for something more. The truly exceptional teachers in this world are not satisfied to know a little about a lot of things—in other words, to be “jacks of all trades and masters of none.” Instead, exemplary teachers choose to seek out the tools and the ideas they believe help them move from being good to being great—becoming the best teachers possible for their students. To find your passion in teaching, pause and listen for the voice that resounds within you. Pursue a path of growth and development guided by what you are truly passionate about. As educators, we are not going to earn the accolades, attention, and the salary of a major league baseball player, but we all, whether we are new to the field of education or are veteran teachers, have experienced those special “Hallmark moments” of connection with our students: the satisfaction of seeing a struggling scholar succeed, and the unexpected pleasure of a former student walking back into our lives to tell us how we made a difference, how what and how we taught in the classroom helped him or her become the adult he or she is today. These are the moments that remind us of why we do what we do and provide the motivation to continue to strive for more rather than settling for less—to remember that we can be masters of both meaning and mechanics. At the end of the day, those kinds of moments justify the choice you made to ask yourself what really matters and your wholehearted pursuit of the answer to that question—your decision to challenge yourself to be more while asking your students to do the same. So listen to your thoughts; they become your words. Hear your words; they become your beliefs. Pay attention to your beliefs; they become your behaviors. Watch your behaviors; they become your character. Mind your character; it becomes your legacy. Choosing to become an inquiry teacher is a process about choosing a direction. It’s about making deep-seated commitments and professional choices about the kind of teacher you want to be and the kind of classroom you want to have. Last, remember this: when you inspire students to imagine beyond their expectations, to seek more questions than they will ever answer, and to persist when others concede, you are becoming an inquiry-based teacher. Best wishes for your journey!

Questions for Reflection and Discussion 1. Attitudes and behaviors are tightly coupled. Our attitudes about teaching and learning determine the behaviors we demonstrate in the classroom. Consider the iceberg metaphor. Ninety percent of the iceberg is below the water level. Ten percent is visible. The part of the iceberg below the water’s surface is like our values, beliefs, and biases about how students learn. The visible portion of the iceberg represents our observable behaviors in the science classroom. How do your beliefs

CREATING A CLASSROOM CULTURE OF INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

about how high school students learn science best influence the way you teach or will teach in the years ahead? 2. Project into the future. Suppose you just fulfilled a 35-year teaching career and the high school science department is throwing you a retirement party. What would you like the main speaker to say about you? What will you do this year and in the years ahead to shape your legacy as an exemplary science teacher? 3. Over the past 20 years, the national standards for science have been grounded in five basic assumptions. As we unfold the new Framework (2012) and the Next Generation Science Standards (1996), these same five assumptions again construct the foundation for instructional reform. Discuss with a partner how the five assumptions play a role in the goal of developing nationwide scientific literacy, thus restoring our ranking for science performance in comparison to other top-performing countries such as Finland, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea. a. The vision of science education described in the standards requires changes throughout the entire system. b. What students learn is greatly influenced by their prior knowledge about a subject, how they are taught, and the relationships they establish with their teachers. c. The actions of teachers are deeply influenced by their perception of the goals for science and their belief about how students learn. d. Student understanding is actively constructed through individual and social negotiation of core concepts and ideas. e. Integrating science practices and themes into the core concepts contributes to students’ understanding of the nature of science and how we come to know what we know about scientific topics.

233

Resource A

Resources for High School Science Teachers

W

hen you make a commitment to become an inquiry- and argument-based teacher, you make a commitment to continue your intellectual and professional development. Professional growth often comes in the form of reading; attending workshops, summer institutes, and seminars; taking graduate-level courses; and collaborating and exchanging ideas through support groups and online forums. For some, this book may be the beginning of your exploration and journey into inquiry and argumentation. For others, it may be one of many resources that helps you construct an understanding of scientific inquiry and argumentation. Whichever case applies, your reading and discussion into inquiry- and argument-based teaching and learning should be ongoing. The purpose of this section is to familiarize science teachers with some of the many resources that are available to you on standards, assessment, constructivism, inquiry investigations, and scientific argumentation.

Print Resources on Scientific Inquiry and Argumentation Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. (2009). Biology teacher’s handbook (4th ed.). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. According to the NSTA Web site, the 4th edition has been updated to reflect contemporary issues and current understandings of science and teaching. You will find this new edition packed full of insights into effective teaching strategies, inquiry-based instruction, course planning, and program selection. The handbook is designed to support you as you build a culture of inquiry in your classroom.

234

RESOURCE A

Flick, L. B., & Lederman, N. G. (Eds.). (2006). Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Provides historical and contemporary contexts for scientific inquiry. Addresses topics in curriculum, assessment, teaching, and learning, as well as the role of the nature of science in inquiry. Gould, S. (1996). The mismeasure of man (revised and expanded ed.). New York, NY: Norton. In the first half of the 1800s, Dr. Samuel Morton used his vast collection of over 600 human skulls to determine the relationship between cranial size and race. By filling the skulls with mustard seed and measuring the amount of seeds in a graduated cylinder, Morton used the data to establish racial ranking. In 1977, Gould reanalyzed Morton’s data and concluded that the measurements were a verification of Morton’s prior bias. The book serves as a historical account of conflicting claims and evidence and can become the basis for a demonstrated inquiry on craniology and scientific argumentation. Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L., Staker, J., & Bintz, J. (2009). Negotiating science: The critical role of argument in student inquiry. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. This book offers ways for teachers in grades 5–10 to foster critical-thinking skills through inquiry, argumentation, and writing. Highly recommended. Hoffer, W. (2009). Science as thinking: The constants and variables of inquiry teaching, grades 5–10. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. The author shows how building a teaching foundation ensures that all of your planning, lessons, and interactions spark students’ interests and support deep thinking about science. Lawson, A. (2010). Teaching inquiry science in middle and secondary schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. A college textbook that provides background readings on the nature of science, higher-order thinking skills, constructivism, and inquiry. Llewellyn, D. (2007). Inquire within: Implementing inquiry-based science standards in grades 3–8 (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. A companion book for Teaching High School Science Through Inquiry and Argumentation that focuses on elementary and middle school grades. Inquire Within will complement this high school book for institutes and seminars that have K−12 teachers as participants. Llewellyn, D. (2011). Differentiated science inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. This book provides standards-based strategies for differentiating science-inquiry (DSI) investigations to more effectively meet the needs of all students. DSI shows how teachers can provide their students with choice, thereby increasing ownership and motivation. Luft, J., Bell, R., & Gess-Newsome, J. (Eds.). (2008). Science as inquiry in the secondary setting. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. According to the back cover, this book is “a compact, easy-to-understand orientation to inquiry for both preservice and inservice science teachers. It’s ideal for guiding discussions, fostering reflection and helping you enhance your own classroom practices.” Topics include

235

236

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

inquiry instruction, assessment, questioning skills, and the role of argumentation in science classrooms. Minstrell, J., & Van Zee, E. (Eds.). (2000). Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. A collection of articles that will apply to both the novice and the experienced inquiry science teacher. Divided into three parts: (1) Why inquiry? (2) What does inquiry look like? and (3) What issues arise with inquiry learning and teaching? National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. A comprehensive guide for implementing inquiry in the science classroom. Excellent reading to accompany to the National Science Education Standards. Rhoton, J., & Shane, P. (Eds.), Teaching science in the 21st century. Arlington, VA: NSTA. An excellent source for articles on innovative best practices, assessment, leading professional development, professional learning communities, and current research on brain-based teaching strategies in the science classroom. Serves as a backdrop for understanding and articulating the need for scientific inquiry and argumentation. Seethaler, S. (2009). Lies, damned lies, and science: How to sort through the noise around global warming, the latest health claims, and other scientific controversies. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press/Pearson. Discusses how science really works and progresses and why scientists sometimes disagree. The author helps you to think more sensibly about everything from mad cow disease to global warming and make better science-related decisions both in your personal life and as a citizen. Interesting background reading for teachers fascinated by science controversies. Smithenry, D., & Gallagher-Bolos, J. (2009). Whole-class inquiry: Creating student-centered science communities. Arlington, VA: NSTA. A follow-up to their 2004 book Teaching Inquiry-Based Chemistry, Whole-Class Inquiry explains how the authors created student-led scientific communities in a high school chemistry classroom. Accompanying DVDs provide videos of their inquiry lessons.

Print Resources on Inquiry- and Argument-Based Investigations Cothron, J., Giese, R., & Rezba, R. (2006). Students and research: Practical strategies for science classrooms and competitions (4th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. An excellent resource for understanding the basic and advanced principles of experimental design and data analysis. Topics include designing experiments, overcoming design flaws, writing procedures, constructing tables and graphs, and writing reports. The book’s many activities offer an enrichment of inquiry investigation skills. More advanced data and statistical significance analysis comprise topics such as standard deviation, treatment groups, t-tests, and chi-square.

RESOURCE A

Gallagher-Bolos, J., & Smithenry, D. (2004). Teaching inquiry-based chemistry. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. This book deals with inquiry as defined by the National Science Education Standards and provides suggestions as to how to make the shift from a traditional to an inquirybased classroom. Gooding, J., & Metz, W. (2006). Inquiry by design. Pittsburgh, PA: RoseDog Books. A valuable collection of standards-based tasks written in a design brief format that fosters the design, analysis, and solution of problems. Topics include chemistry, consumer science, earth and environmental sciences, physics, forensics, life science, and scientific reasoning. Most appropriate for introductory classes at grade 9 that use problem-solving and guided-inquiry investigations. Hanson, T., & Slesnick, I. (2006). Adventures in paleontology: 30 classroom fossil activities. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. Provides activities for earth science (as well as all secondary school science teachers) that can be adapted to foster inquiry and argumentation into the science curriculum. Activities emphasize observing, inferring, and model building. Lechtanski, V. (2000). Inquiry-based experiments in chemistry. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. Contains 35 structured-inquiry experiments for high school chemistry students. Includes teacher notes and sample lab reports for each experiment. Sheilds, M. (2006). Biology investigations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Provides activities that serve as inquiry investigations or whole-class discussions. Reproducible handouts are provided for topics on the cell, heredity, evolution, organism behavior, and system organization. Krasny, M., & the Environmental Inquiry Team. (2002). Invasion ecology: Cornell scientific inquiry series. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. Leads students into conducting investigations in plant ecology. Students learn how to do research with simple and inexpensive bioassays by studying real-life invaders like purple loosestrife. Includes a teacher guide and student edition. Companion to Assessing Toxic Risk. Excellent biology and environmental science resource for grades 9–12. Lechtanski, V. (2000). Inquiry-based experiments in chemistry. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. Contains 35 high school chemistry experiments. Each experiment identifies the “Experiment,” the “Teacher’s Notes,” and a “Sample Lab Report.” The teacher’s notes are exceptionally useful in helping the teacher introduce the lab and provide common misconceptions students have about the topic as well as procedural and calculation errors to expect. Although the book is very useful, it may be difficult to find. Try several online book companies, such as www.amazon.com. McDermott, L. (1996). Physics by inquiry (Vols. 1 & 2). New York, NY: Wiley. Includes laboratory-based modules that provide a step-by-step introduction to the physical sciences. Applicable to preservice and practicing elementary and secondary

237

238

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

school teachers. The modules are designed to develop scientific reasoning in physics and the process of inquiry. Stephans, J. (2011). Targeting physical science misconceptions using the conceptual change model (3rd ed.). St. Cloud, MN: Saiwood. The purpose of this book is to introduce the Conceptual Change Model and describe how students’ misconceptions play a major role in their learning. Using over 16 concepts in physical science, the book suggests possible misconceptions students may hold for each concept and provides activities to uncover and address those misconceptions. This book is appropriate for introductory physical science courses at grade 9. Trautmann, N., & the Environmental Inquiry Team. (2001). Assessing toxic risk: Cornell scientific inquiry series. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. Leads students into conducting investigations in toxicology. Students learn how to do research with simple and inexpensive bioassays. Includes a teacher guide and student edition. Excellent biology and environmental science resource for grades 9–12. Trautmann, N., & the Environmental Inquiry Team. (2003). Decay and renewal: Cornell scientific inquiry series. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. Leads students into conducting investigations in natural recycling, composting, and wastewater treatment. Students learn how to do research with simple and inexpensive bioassays. Includes a teacher guide and student edition. Excellent biology and environmental science resource for grades 9–12. Trautmann, N., & Krasny, M. (1997). Composting in the classroom: Scientific inquiry for high school students. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. A guide for grade 9–12 teachers and students interested in using composting for science and multidisciplinary projects. Includes additional information on compost and waste management.

Print Resources on Constructivism Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Exp. ed.). Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Provides research findings on how learning occurs and offers recommendations about what teachers can do to facilitate student learning. Brooks, J., & Brooks, M. (2001). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. This book is an excellent starting point for reading about constructivism and its application to teaching strategies. Although the book applies to all content areas, science teachers will find this book helpful in gaining a baseline understanding of constructivism. The book is easy to read and is filled with practical suggestions for classroom practice. Bybee, R. (Ed.). (2002). Learning science and the science of learning. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. A comprehensive look at teaching and learning through a constructivist perspective. Includes articles on curriculum design, assessment, and professional development.

RESOURCE A

Gagnon, G., & Collay, M. (2001). Designing for learning: Six elements in constructivist classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. The authors present a six-step Constructivist Learning Design (CDC) with a constructivist perspective on how to structure student learning environments. Although not written specifically for high school science teachers, educators at all levels and areas will benefit from this book. National Research Council. (2005). How students learn: Science in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. A must-read text on the research concerning how students learn science and the implications for constructivist classroom practice. Includes DVD for the NRC’s How Students Learn: History, Mathematics, and Science in the Classroom. Document available online as a free PDF document at www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11102. Shapiro, A. (2000). Leadership for constructivist schools. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow. A down-to-earth guide with practical suggestions on how administrators and teachers can work together to develop constructivist school climates. Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (2000). How students (mis-)understand science and mathematics. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Sophisticated reading for teachers interested in students’ misconceptions. According to NSTA, this book “gives you a detailed framework to explain and predict cognitive behaviors. Then (the book) offers practical teaching suggestions for using the framework in your own classroom.”

Print Resources on Science Standards and Science Literacy American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. A compelling vision for science reform and achieving scientific literacy. Companion report to Benchmarks for Science Literacy. Although now a bit dated, it served as a vehicle for science curriculum reform for 20 years. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Provides science educators with guidelines for improving science literacy. Recommends what students should know and be able to do by the time they reach certain grade levels. Although now a bit dated, it served as a vehicle for science curriculum reform for 20 years. Banilower, E., Cohen, K., Pasley, J., & Weiss, I. (2010). Effective science instruction: What does the research tell us? (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. This booklet highlights five elements of effective instruction: motivation, eliciting students’ prior knowledge, intellectual engagement with relevant phenomena, using evidence to critique claims, and sensemaking. Contains sample lessons. An excellent resource for both policymakers and practitioners. Available at www.centeroninstruction .org/effective-science-instruction-what-does-research-tell-us-second-edition.

239

240

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. This book outlines standards for educational reform from 1996 to the present. Includes standards for science teaching, assessment, content, and program development. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K−12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. The latest document to set the foundation for the Next Generation Science Standards. A must-read for all stakeholders involved in science curriculum reform over the next several decades. Provides three distinct dimensions: scientific and engineering practices (previously called inquiry), crosscutting concepts (themes that apply across all areas of science), and disciplinary core ideas (content topics that provide tools for understanding key concepts in science). Available as a free PDF document at www.nap.edu.

Print Resources on Assessment Atkin, J., & Coffey, J. (Eds.). (2003). Everyday assessment in the science classroom. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. A collection of 10 articles and essays on assessment techniques. Includes “how-to” strategies for conducting assessments in science. Doran, R., Chan, F., Tamir, P., & Lenhart, C. (2002). Science educator’s guide to laboratory assessment. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. Provides extensive background information connecting assessment and inquiry. Includes sections on high-stakes assessment, alternative assessment formats, and sample assessments for grades 9–12 in biology, chemistry, earth science, and physics. Enger, S., & Yager, R. (2001). Assessing student understanding in science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Presents assessment of six domains of science, rubrics, and assessment examples for grades 9−12. Lantz, H. (2004). Rubrics for assessing student achievement in science grades K−12. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Offers over 100 ready-to-use analytic and holistic rubrics to assess and evaluate student performance. Mintzes, J., Wandersee, J., & Novak, J. (Eds.). (2000). Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist approach. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Provides a look at science assessment through the eye of constructivist authors. Articles include assessing science through concept maps, vee diagrams, and graphic organizers, using rubrics and portfolios. National Research Council. (2001). Classroom assessment and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Excellent resource to accompany the National Science Education Standards. Pellegrino, J., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (Eds.). (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

RESOURCE A

Presents several recommendations for rethinking the implications of assessment. Excellent resource to accompany How Students Learn.

Print Resources on General Science Areas Hartman, H., & Glasgow, N. (2002). Tips for the science teacher: Research-based strategies to help students learn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Provides instructional tips for teachers to consider. Many of the tips refer to inquirybased and constructivist strategies. Very appropriate for the beginning high school science teacher. Youngson, R. (1998). Science blunders: A brief history of how wrong scientists can sometimes be. New York, NY: Carroll & Graf. An interesting history of the many scientific theories and models that have been disproved. Includes “blunders” for earth, life, and physical sciences. Applies to the conceptual change theory and how scientists can make claims that later are refuted.

Multimedia Resources on Scientific Inquiry and Argumentation Schneps, M. (Producer), & the Science Media Group of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. (1987). A private universe—Minds of our own [DVD]. Washington, DC: Annenberg Learner. According to Annenberg, “From its famous opening scene at a Harvard graduation, this classic of educational research brings into sharp focus the dilemma facing all educators: Why don’t even the brightest students truly grasp basic science concepts? These two historic, award-winning programs trace the problem with interviews with eloquent Harvard graduates, professors, and Heather, a bright high school student who has some strange ideas about the orbits of the planets. Equally fitting for education-methods classes, teacher workshops, and presentations to the public, it is an essential resource for any educational video collection.” Order online at www.learner.org.

Online Resources on Scientific Inquiry and Argumentation Annenberg/CPB at www.learner.org Annenberg/CPB (Corporation for Public Broadcasting) is a premier Web site for professional development resources and videos on inquiry-based science and mathematics. The Web site lists a schedule of a distance-learning video series. A key program of interest includes “Teaching High School Science.” According to Annenberg, “The Teaching High School Science library will help new and veteran science teachers integrate national science standards and inquiry learning into their curricula. Showing science classrooms around the country, the modules cover topics in life science, physical science, earth and space science, and integrated science. They also show a range of teaching techniques and student/teacher interaction.” The free video on demand includes “Thinking Like Scientists,” where scientists in the field explain the concept of inquiry. In “Chemical

241

242

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

Reactions,” students in a 9th-grade science class formulate and explore their own questions about a chemical reaction. In “Investigating Crickets,” 9th-grade biology students design and conduct experiments about crickets. In “Exploring Mars,” students in an 11thgrade integrated-science class explore how the Mars landscape may have formed, and in “The Physics of Optics,” an 11th- and 12th-grade physics class looks at light, lenses, and the human eye. For more information see www.learner.org/resources/series126.html. PhET Interactive Simulations at University of Colorado at Boulder at http://phet .colorado.edu According to the Web site, PhET provides fun, interactive, research-based simulations of physical phenomena for free. Simulations animate what is invisible to the eye through the use of graphics and intuitive controls such as click-and-drag manipulation and offer measurement instruments, including rulers, stopwatches, voltmeters, and thermometers. Simulations are available in biology, earth science, chemistry, and physics. Simulations can be easily incorporated into inquiry- and argument-based investigations. Subscribe to the PhET newsletter and keep abreast of its latest developments. Eisenhower National Clearinghouse (ENC) at www.goenc.com The ENC is a first-rate resource for educational reform in math and science. ENC’s Web site includes K−12 curriculum resources, Web links, and professional develop resources. For links to outstanding inquiry-based high school biology, chemistry, and physics programs, go to www.goenc.com and search topics of interest. Also of interest from ENC is “Foundation Science: A Comprehensive High School Curriculum” at http:// cse.edc.org/curriculum/foundationscience/default.asp. http://hechingerreport.org/category/special_reports/science/ The Hechinger Report provides comprehensive, up-to-date information and articles on education reform issues, including science. Terrific Science at www.terrificscience.org A wealth of resources for science teachers. Includes many suggested books and inquiry-based lessons at its “freebie” site. Wisconsin Fast Plants Program at www.fastplants.org To speed along your botany investigations, consider using the Wisconsin Fast Plants Program. Students can observe a plant life cycle, from seed to adult, in about 40 days. Site includes instructions, suggested activities, and ordering information. The Inquiry Learning Forum (ILF) through Indiana University at http://crlt.indiana.edu/ research/docs/ilf_flyer.pdf The ILF through Indiana University is a resource for new and seasoned inquiry science teachers. You will need to register and provide a password. After that, this Web site will keep you engaged for months. Take time to visit several ILF classrooms where you can engage in discussions and scan for classroom resources and lessons. “Visiting a High School Inquiry Classroom: How to Prepare and Observe” at http://cse .edc.org/products/pdfs/observerguide.pdf This document, “Visiting a High School Inquiry Classroom: How to Prepare and Observe,” is published by the Educational Development Center (EDC) in Newton, Massachusetts. The guide, according to the EDC, is intended “to help observers of high

RESOURCE A

school classrooms recognize the dimensions of inquiry teaching underway in the classroom. It is designed for administrators, professional development specialists, or mentors in a position to support the efforts of teachers changing their practice.” If you are a high school inquiry-based science teacher, a science department chair, or a teacher/leader, place this document on your reading list. The National Academies Press at www.nap.edu The National Academies Press has many teacher resources pertaining to science instruction and reform. The following documents are available online as free PDF versions. To view them go to www.nap.edu, select “Education” on the left column, and then select “Math and Science Education.” Or go directly to any of the following documents: •• National Science Education Standards at www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=4962 •• Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning at www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=9596 •• Successful K−12 STEM Education: Identifying Effective Approaches in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics at www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13158 •• A Framework for K−12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas at www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165 •• America’s Lab Report: Investigation in High School Science at www.nap.edu/catalog .php?record_id=11311 •• Exploring the Intersection of Science Education and 21st Century Skills: A Workshop Summary at www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12771 •• How Students Learn: Science in the Classroom at www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_ id=11102 •• Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science at www.nap.edu/catalog .php?record_id=5787 •• Science, Evolution, and Creationism at www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876 •• Selecting Instructional Materials: A Guide for K−12 Science at www.nap.edu/catalog .php?record_id=9607 •• Learning and Understanding: Improving Advanced Study of Mathematics and Science in U.S. High Schools: A Report of the Content Panel for Biology at www.nap.edu/catalog .php?record_id=10365 •• Learning and Understanding: Improving Advanced Study of Mathematics and Science in U.S. High Schools: A Report of the Content Panel for Chemistry at www.nap.edu/ catalog.php?record_id=10364 •• Learning and Understanding: Improving Advanced Study of Mathematics and Science in U.S. High Schools: A Report of the Content Panel for Physics at www.nap.edu/catalog .php?record_id=10361 •• Plus two K−8 resources that even apply to high school classrooms: •• Ready, Set, Science! at www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11882 •• Taking Science to School at www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11625

Professional Organizations State-Level Science Teachers Association Each state has its own science teachers association to promote and inspire excellence in science teaching. Readers are encouraged to become members of their state association.

243

244

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

If you are unfamiliar with your state’s organization, go to the Council of State Science Supervisors at www.csss-science.org and select “Members” on the right side. The Web site will take you to a map where you can select your state to contact the science supervisor and obtain information on your state’s professional organization. The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) at www.nsta.org The NSTA is a professional organization for K−16 science teachers. Click on “High School” and find resources and articles on inquiry-based science. The high school journal The Science Teacher contains many useful articles on standards, instruction, and assessment. Since 2002, several issues of The Science Teacher have been devoted specifically to inquiry-based instruction and assessment. Archived issues of The Science Teacher are available at www.NSTA.org. February 2002—“What is Inquiry?”—Vol. 69, No. 2 December 2002—“Inquiry dot Com”—Vol. 69, No. 9 April 2003—“Inquiry-Based Activities”—Vol. 70, No. 4 September 2003—“Engage Your Students”—Vol. 70, No. 6 December 2003—“Authentic Investigations”—Vol. 70, No. 9 January 2004—“Designing Inquiry Pathways”—Vol. 71, No. 1 April 2004—“Interpreting Evidence”—Vol. 71, No. 4 October 2005—“Inquiry in the Laboratory”—Vol. 72, No. 7 November 2010—“Inquiry Across the Science Disciplines”—Vol. 77. No. 8 In addition, NSTA has numerous position papers on a wide range of science-education topics. For the position paper on inquiry see www.nsta.org/about/positions/inquiry .aspx. If you are not a member of NSTA, you should strongly consider joining. The National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) at www.nabt.org The NABT is a professional organization for high school biology teachers. See many biology activities by clicking “Free Teacher Resources” on the left side of the home page. The National Association of Geoscience Teachers (NAGT) at www.nagt.org According to the Web site, “NAGT works to foster improvement in the teaching of the earth sciences at all levels of formal and informal instruction, to emphasize the cultural significance of the earth sciences and to disseminate knowledge in this field to the general public.” For inquiry-based activities, go to “teaching resources” and then click “inquiry activities.” The National Earth Science Teachers Association (NESTA) at www.nestanet.org The NESTA is an educational organization whose purpose is the advancement, stimulation, extension, improvement, and coordination of earth science education at all educational levels. Go to “Educational Resources” and click “Classroom Activities.”

RESOURCE A

American Chemical Society (ACS) at www.acs.org The ACS provides a wide range of resources for chemistry educators. ACS has an excellent professional magazine for high school teachers called ChemMatters. To access the magazine go to “Education,” then “Educational Resources,” and then click “High School.” For information on the Journal of Chemical Education, click the “Publications” section and then click “ACS Journals A−Z” and scroll down to Journal of Chemical Education. The American Association of Physics Teacher (AAPT) at www.aapt.org The AAPT was established in 1930 with the fundamental goal of ensuring the “dissemination of knowledge of physics, particularly by way of teaching.” The AAPT currently has over 11,000 members in 30 countries around the world. The Physics Teacher, AAPT’s magazine, publishes papers on physics research, the history and philosophy of physics, applied physics, curriculum developments, pedagogy, and instructional lab equipment, as well as book reviews.

245

Resource B

Bottle Handout

Copyright © 2013 by Corwin. All rights reserved. Reprinted from Teaching High School Science Through Inquiry and Argumentation, Second Edition, by Douglas Llewellyn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, www.corwin.com.

246

References Abraham, M. (1997). The learning cycle approach to science instruction (Monograph #9701). Norman, OK: National Association for Research in Science Teaching. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: Author. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Washington, DC: Author. Atkin, J. M., & Karplus, R. (1962). Discovery or invention? The Science Teacher, 29(2), 121–143. Audet, R., & Jordan, L. (2003). Standards in the classroom: An implementation guide for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Ausubel, D. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Baird, J., Fensham, P., Gunstone, R., & White, R. (1989, March). A study of the importance of reflection for improving science teaching and learning. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching annual conference, San Francisco, CA. Banilower, E., Cohen, K., Pasley, J., & Weiss, I. (2010). Effective science instruction: What does research tell us? (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. Beisenherz, P., & Dantonio, M. (1996). Using the learning cycle to teach physical science. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. (2004). Biology: A human approach. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/ Hunt. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. (2009). The biology teacher’s handbook (4th ed.). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1999). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill-Prentice Hall. Burnett, R. (1999). The pillbug project: A guide to investigation. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. Bybee, R. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Colburn, A. (1996). Invited paper. The Science Teacher, 63(1), 10. Colburn, A., & Clough, M. (1997). Implementing the learning cycle. The Science Teacher, 64(5), 30–33. Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (n.d.). Describing 16 habits of mind. Retrieved from http://www.institute forhabitsofmind.com/resources/pdf/16HOM.pdf Costenson, K., & Lawson, A. (1986). Why isn’t inquiry used in more classrooms? The American Biology Teacher, 48(3), 150–158. Council of Chief of State School Officers & National Governors Association. (2010). Common core state standards for English/language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards .pdf DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582–601. de Saint-Exupery, A. (1943). The little prince. New York, NY: Reynal & Hitchcock. Dewey, J. (1900). The school and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

247

248

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Macmillan. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan. Doran, R., Chan, F., Tamir, P., & Lenhardt, C. (2002). Science educator’s guide to laboratory assessment. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. Driscoll, M. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. (1995). Students’ conceptions and constructivist teaching approaches. In B. J. Fraser & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Improving science education (pp. 46−69). Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of Education. Edmondson, K. (2000). Assessing science understanding through concept maps. In J. Mintzes, J. Wandersee, & J. Novak (Eds.), Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view (pp. 15–40). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Eyster, L. (2010). Encouraging creativity in the science lab. The Science Teacher, 77(6), 32–35. Flick, L. B., & Lederman, N. G. (Eds.). (2006). Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Galus, P. (2000). Seeds for thought. The Science Teacher, 67(5), 28–31. Galus, P. (2003). Diet or regular? A common cookbook demonstration about density initiates a student inquiry investigation. The Science Teacher, 70(4), 45–47. Gibran, K. (1923). The prophet. New York, NY: Alfred Knopf. Glase, J., & Palmer, J. (1993). Isopod orientation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Institute for Biology Teachers, Cornell University. Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the power of emotional intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School. Graff, G., & Birkenstein, C. (2010). They say/I say: The moves that matter in academic writing (2nd ed.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton. Haberman, M. (1991). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(4), 290–294. Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L., Staker, J., & Bintz, J. (2009). Negotiating science: The critical role of argument in science inquiry. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Hermann, R., & Miranda, R. (2010). A template for open inquiry. The Science Teacher, 77(8), 26–30. Hester, J. (1994). Teaching for thinking. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press. Huxley, T. (1899). Science and education. New York, NY: Appleton. Ingram, M., & Kelley, A. (2003). Bottle biology (2nd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking. New York, NY: Basic Books. Johnson, S. (1998). Who moved my cheese? New York, NY: Putnam. Kotter, J., & Rathgeber, H. (2005). Our iceberg is melting. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press. Kowalski, T., Weaver, R., & Henson, K. (1990). Case studies on teaching. White Plains, NY: Longman. Krathwohl, D. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218. Lawson, A. (2010). Teaching inquiry science in middle and secondary schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lawson, A., Abraham, M., & Renner, J. (1989). A theory of instruction: Using the learning cycle to teach science concepts and thinking skills (Monograph #1). Cincinnati, OH: National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Llewellyn, D. (2007). Inquire within: Implementing inquiry-based science standard in grades 3–8 (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Llewellyn, D. (2009). Facilitator’s guide to inquire within (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Llewellyn, D. (2011). Differentiated science inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Llewellyn, D., & Rajesh, H. (2011). Fostering argumentation skills: Doing what real scientists really do. Science Scope, 35(1), 22–28. Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K., Mundry, S., Love, N., & Hewson, P. (2010). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Marek, E., & Cavallo, A. (1997). The learning cycle. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Marshall, J., Horton, R., & White, C. (2009). EQUIPping teachers: A protocol to guide and improve inquiry-based instruction. The Science Teacher, 76(4), 46–53.

REFERENCES

Martinello, M., & Cook, G. (2000). Interdisciplinary inquiry in teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Marzano, R. (1992). A different kind of classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Marzano, R., & Kendall, J. (2007). The new taxonomy of educational objectives (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. McComas, W. (2005). Laboratory instruction in the service of science teaching and learning. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 24–29. Michaels, S., Shouse, A., & Schweingruber, H. (2008). Ready, set, science!: Putting research to work in K–8 science classrooms. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Mikulka, T. (2000). Isopod inquiry. The Science Teacher, 67(9), 20–22. Minner, D., Levy, A., & Century, J. (2009). Inquiry-based science instruction: What is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496. Myers, S., Cushman, S., & Youngman, J. (2011). Finger Lakes regional stream monitoring network manual. Geneva, NY: Finger Lakes Institute at Hobart & William Smith Colleges. Nagel, G. (1994). The tao of teaching. New York, NY: Plume. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. National Commission on Mathematics and Science. (2000). Before it’s too late: A report to the nation from the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st century. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (1998). Teaching about evolution and the nature of science. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (2000a). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (2000b). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Exp. ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (2001a). Educating teachers of science, mathematics, and technology: New practices for a new millennium. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (2001b). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (2001c). Classroom assessment and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (2006). America’s lab report: Investigations in high school science (S. R. Singer, M. L. Hilton, & H. A. Schweingruber, Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K−12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Research Council. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Nolan, T. (1991). Self-questioning and prediction: Combining metacognitive strategies. Journal of Reading, 35(2), 132–137. Norton, M., & Lester, P. (1998). K−12 case studies for school administrators: Problems, issues, and resources. New York, NY: Garland. Novak, J. (1990). Concept maps and Vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools to facilitate meaningful learning. Instructional Science, 19(1), 29–52. Novak, J. (1998). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Novak, J., & Gowin, D. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Osborne, J. (2009/2010). An argument for arguments in science classes. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(4), 62−65.

249

250

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

O’Sullivan, C., & Weiss, A. (1999). Student work and teacher practices in science: A report of what students know and can do. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Palmer, P. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Piaget, J. (1970). The science of education and the psychology of the child. New York, NY: Orion Press. Plankis, B., Vowell, J., & Ramsey, J. (2011). Generating discourse with cookie and doughnut investigations. Science Scope, 35(1), 38–41. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227. Pratt, H. (2012). The reader’s guide to a framework for K−12 science education. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. Reagan, T., Case, C., & Brubacher, J. (2000). Becoming a reflective educator: How to build a culture of inquiry in the schools (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Romey, W. (1968). Inquiry techniques for teaching science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Ross, D., Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2009). The art of argumentation. Science and Children, 47(3), 28–31. Rowe, M. B. (1974). Wait-time and rewards as instructional variables. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 11(2), 263–279. Rowe, M. B. (1987). Using wait time to stimulate inquiry. In W. W. Wilen (Ed.), Questions, questioning techniques, and effective teaching (pp. 95–106). Washington, DC: National Education Association. Sagan, C. (1996). The demon-haunted world. New York, NY: Ballantine Books. Sampson, V. (2004). The science management observation protocol. The Science Teacher, 71(10), 30–33. Sampson, V., & Gleim, L. (2009). Argument-driven inquiry to promote the understanding of the important concepts and practices in biology. The American Biology Teacher, 71(8), 465−472. Sampson, V., & Grooms, J. (2009). Teacher’s toolkit: Promoting and supporting scientific argumentation in the classroom—The evaluate-alternatives instructional model. Science Scope, 33(1), 66–73. Sampson, V., & Grooms, J. (2010). Generate and argument: An instructional model. The Science Teacher, 77(5), 32−37. Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. (2009). Argument-driven inquiry. The Science Teacher, 76(8), 42−47. Shiland, T. (1999). Constructivism: The implications for laboratory work. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(1), 107–109. Southerland, S., Smith, M., & Cummins, C. (2002). “What do you mean by that?”: Using structured interviews to assess science understanding. In J. Mintzes, J. Wandersee, & J. Novak (Eds.), Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view (pp. 71–93). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Stevens, D. (1991). Earth science final exam: A new approach. In G. Kulm & S. Malcom (Eds.), Science assessment in the service of reform (pp. 359–361). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Sutman, F. X. (2001). Mathematics and science literacy for all Americans. ENC Focus, 8(3), 20–23. Trefil, J. (2003). Two modest proposals concerning scientific literacy. In S. Marshall, J. Scheppler, & M. Palmisano (Eds.), Scientific literacy for the twenty-first century (pp. 150–160). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. Tuckman, B. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384−399. University of the State of New York. (2005, January). Regents High School examination: Physical setting earth science: Answer booklet. Retrieved from http://www.nysedregents.org/EarthScience/ Archive/20050126answerbooklet.pdf Van Scotter, P., & Pinkerton, K. (2008). Assessing science as inquiry in the classroom. In J. Luft, R. Bell, & J. Gess-Newsome (Eds.), Science as inquiry in the secondary setting (pp. 107–120). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

REFERENCES

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language (E. Hanfmann & G. Voker, Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press. (Original work published 1934) Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1979). Consciousness as a problem in the psychology of behavior. Soviet Psychology, 18(1), 67–115. Walsh, J., & Sattes, B. (2005). Quality questioning: Research-based practice to engage every learner. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Windschitl, M. (1999). The challenges of sustaining a constructivist classroom culture. Phi Delta Kappan, 70(10), 751–755. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Young, W. P. (2007). The shack. Los Angeles, CA: Windblown Media. Youngson, R. (1998). Scientific blunders: A brief history of how wrong scientists can sometimes be. New York, NY: Carroll & Graf.

251

Index AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science), 2–3, 9–10, 147, 194 ABCs (attitudes, behaviors, and competencies), and inquiry-based teachers, 219–221 Abraham, M., 83 Action-oriented tasks, and time management, 149–150 Alternative (authentic) assessment. See Assessment; Authentic (alternative) assessment American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 2–3, 9–10, 147, 194 American Biology Teacher (journal), 39, 83, 147 America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science (NRC), 23, 125, 141–142 Anxieties, over assessment, 190–191 Argumentation. See also Inquiry; Resources for inquiry and argumentation; Scaffolding inquiry and argumentation; Science CCSS and, 23–26 classroom as courtroom and, 37 description of, 19–20 flaws in reasoning and, 28–29 fossil footprints activity and, 30 literacy in science and technical subjects and, 24–25 magic glue activity and, 30–31 making a case for, 21–22 media influence and, 18–19 mystery box activity and, 29–30 NRC and, 23, 26–28 NSES and, 22–23 NSTA and, 28 parts of an argument and, 20–21 questions for reflection and discussion and, 39–40 realistic view of scientists’ work and, 37–38 reasoning types and, 28 sponge eggs hatching activity and, 32–33 Armadillidium vulgare (pillbugs) or isopods case study, 42–48 Assessment. See also Authentic (alternative) assessment anxieties over assessment and, 190–191 centripetal force measurement and assessment case study and, 206–212

252

classroom management, 157–158 curriculum alignment and, 191–192 design for, 193–194 formative and summative assessment tools and, 192–193 multiple assessments and, 195 questions for reflection and discussion and, 212 Seven Segments of Scientific Investigation and, 199 test items choices and, 194–195 transitions to modifications in, 205–206 Atkin, J. M, 83 Atmosphere in classrooms, and classroom management, 155–157 Attitudes, behaviors, and competencies (ABCs), and inquiry-based teachers, 219–221 Audet, R., 192 Authentic (alternative) assessment. See also Assessment capstone projects and, 205 description of, 195 monitoring charts, and authentic assessment, 199–201 monitoring charts and, 199–201 performance tasks, and authentic assessment, 196 performance tasks and, 196 rubrics or scoring guides for, 196–197 self-assessment and, 202–205 structured interviews and, 201–202 transcending questions and, 198–199 Behaviorism, compared with constructivism, 66 Beisenherz, P., 83 Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS), 2, 9, 147 Bintz, J., 20 Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS), 83–84 Biology case study, 66–68 Bloom’s Taxonomy, 166–169, 177, 185. See also Questioning skills development, for teachers Bottle ecosystems case study, 114–119, 246 Brainstorming, 50–51 case studies and, 50–51 centripetal force measurement and assessment case study and, 208–210 failures during, 51

INDEX

Bransford, J., 151 Brooks, J. G., 68, 219 Brooks, M. G., 68, 219 Brown, A., 151 Brubacher, J., 214 BSCS (Biological Sciences Curriculum Study), 83–84 Bybee, R., 83 Capstone projects, and authentic assessment, 205 Case, C., 214 Case studies. See also Argumentation; Inquiry biology case study and, 66–68 bottle ecosystems case study and mechanics of inquiry, 114–119, 246 brainstorming and, 50–51 centripetal force measurement and assessment case study and, 206–212 constructivist learning model and, 66–68, 91–99 description of, 41–42 FLRSMN case study and mechanics of inquiry, 119–123 hydrate laboratory case study and laboratory experiments and, 142–144 inquiry-based teachers and teaching and, 62–64 Inquiry Cycle and, 48–49 investigation of contour lines case study and classroom management and, 158–162 isopods case study and, 42–48 professional development plan design case study, and teachers’ questioning skills development, 184–187 questions for reflection and discussion and, 51–52 teaching career case study and, 228–231 yeast case study and, 91–99 Cavallo, A., 83 CCSS (Common Core State Standards), 23–26 Centripetal force measurement, 206–212 Challenges to inquiry-based teaching classroom management and, 147–148 constructivist learning model and, 88–90 Chudowsky, N., 151–152 Classroom as courtroom, and argumentation, 37 Classroom culture of inquiry and argumentation. See also Constructivist learning model constructivist learning model and, 90 description of, 1, 213–214 inquiry-based classroom environment and, 216 legacy of teachers and, 231–232 questions for reflection and discussion and, 232–233 reculturing classroom norms and relationships and, 222–228 Seven Segments of Scientific Investigation and, 222–223, 225 students in inquiry-based classroom and, 216–219

teachers’ ABCs and, 219–221 teaching career case study and, 228–231 traditional classroom environment and, 215–216 Classroom management. See also Time management assessment and monitoring strategies, 157–158 atmosphere in classrooms and, 155–157 challenges to inquiry-based teaching and, 147–148 implementation curve and, 146–147 investigation of contour lines case study and, 158–162 lockstep approach avoidance and, 154–155 questions for reflection and discussion and, 162–163 Clough, M., 83 Cocking, R., 151 Colburn, A., 83, 127 Common Core State Standards (CCSS), 23–26 Concept maps, and time management, 151–153 Conceptual change theory, and constructivist learning model, 81–83 Conceptual image, of teachers and teaching, 53–55 Constructivism. See also Constructivist learning model behaviorism compared with, 66 contemporary, 75–76 description of, 66 Dewey, J. and, 70 historical perspective of, 70–75 objectivism compared with, 66 Piaget, J. and, 71–73 resources in print on, 238–239 Vygotsky, L. W. and, 74–75 Constructivist learning model, 66–68, 91–99. See also Constructivism biology case study and, 66–68 challenges to inquiry-based teaching and, 88–90 conceptual change theory and, 81–83 description of, 65 5E Learning Cycle and, 72–73, 83–88, 91–99, 130, 142–143, 158 language and, 83 learning process for adolescents and, 77–78 metacognition and, 76–77 misconceptions by students and, 77–81 preconceptions by students and, 77–81 questions for reflection and discussion and, 99 traditional versus, 66–70 vision of, 90–91 yeast case study and, 91–99 Cook, G., 17 Core concepts focus, and time management, 150 Costenson, K., 147 Curriculum alignment, and assessment, 191–192 Daily rules and routines, and time management, 150 Dantonio, M., 83

253

254

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

Data tables and graphs deletion, and laboratory experiments, 131 Demonstration of inquiry, and mechanics of inquiry, 102 Density laboratory demonstrations and, 135–136 misconceptions about, 133–134 Density demonstrations Coca-Cola/Diet Coke demonstration and, 136 golf ball in graduated cylinder demonstration and, 135–136 ice in unknown liquid demonstration and, 135 Designs, for assessment, 193–194 Dewey, J., 70 Differentiated inquiry, and mechanics of inquiry, 112–114 Directions for tasks, and time management, 150–151 Discrepant events, and mechanics of inquiry, 102–103 Driscoll, M., 71–72, 82 Duit, R., 78 Einstein, A., 190 Electronic Quality of Inquiry Protocol (EQUIP), 61, 157 EQUIP (Electronic Quality of Inquiry Protocol), 61, 157 Essential or starter questions, and time management, 149 Exploratory questions, and teachers’ questioning skills development, 179–184 Expository questions, and teachers’ questioning skills development, 169 Finger Lakes Regional Stream Monitoring Network (FLRSMN) case study, 119–123 Fisher, D., 19 5E Learning Cycle, 72–73, 83–88, 91–99, 130, 142–143, 158 Flick, L. B., 5 FLRSMN (Finger Lakes Regional Stream Monitoring Network) case study, 119–123 Formative and summative assessment tools, 192–193 Fossil footprints activity, and scaffolding argumentation, 30 Four levels of instruction, and mechanics of inquiry, 101 Four levels of instruction or Invitation to Inquiry, 101, 106–107, 111–112 Framework for K−12 Science Education, A (NRC) argumentation and, 23, 26–28 bottle ecosystem case study and, 115 centripetal force measurement and assessment case study and, 206 exploratory questions and, 147 FLRSMN case study and, 119

hydrate laboratory case study and, 142 inquiry and, 4, 14 inquiry-based teaching and, 219, 233 isopods case study and, 42 laboratory experiences and, 142 yeast case study and constructivist lesson format and, 91–99 Franklin, B., 148 Frey, N., 19 Galus, P., 131, 136 General science areas, and print resources, 241. See also Science Gertzog, W. A., 82 Gibran, K., 99 Glaser, R., 151–152 “Going further” addition, and laboratory experiments, 132 Grooms, J., 29, 39–40 Group work, by students, 153, 218 Guided inquiry. See also Inquiry-based teachers and teaching; Mechanics of inquiry laboratory experiments and, 136–139 student inquiry and, 107–112 teacher-initiated inquiry and, 105–106 Haberman, M., 155 Habits of mind, and inquiry, 2–3 Hand, B., 20 Hester, J., 2, 72 Hewson, P. W., 82, 185 Horton, R., 61, 157 Human qualities, and inquiry, 9–10 Huxley, T., 83, 124 Hydrate laboratory case study, 142–144 Implementation curve, and classroom management, 146–147 Inhelder, D., 71–72 Inquiry. See also Argumentation; Case studies; Classroom culture of inquiry and argumentation; Guided inquiry; Mechanics of inquiry; Resources for inquiry and argumentation; Scaffolding inquiry and argumentation; Science AAAS and, 2–3, 9–10, 13 classroom culture of, 1 definition of, 15–16 description of “what is” and “what is not,” 14–15 habits of mind and, 2–3 human qualities and, 9–10 National Academy of Science and, 13 NRC on, 3–5, 9 NSF and, 10, 13 NSTA and, 13 pretzel theory and, 9 questions for reflection and discussion about, 16–17 resources in print on, 234–238

INDEX

Seven Segments of Scientific Investigation and, 6–9, 127, 179–183, 199, 222–223, 225 ten beliefs and rebuttals about, 10–14 three-pronged meaning of, 5–6 types and designations of, 1 Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards Generation Science Standard (NRC), 4 Inquiry-based teachers and teaching. See also Assessment; Case studies; Classroom culture of inquiry and argumentation; Classroom management; Constructivism; Constructivist learning model; Inquiry; Laboratory experiments; Mechanics of inquiry; Questioning skills development, for teachers; Scaffolding inquiry and argumentation ABCs and, 219–221 case study and, 62–64 challenges for, 88–90, 147–148 conceptual image of teachers and teaching and, 53–55 description of, 53 instructional pie evaluation and, 57–59 journals for, 39, 83, 147, 221 legacy of, 231–232 legacy of teachers and, 231–232 mediocrity and, 64 myths and misconceptions about, 57 non-inquiry teachers arguments and, 56–57 professional organizations and, 243–245 progress and transition for, 61–62 questions for reflection and discussion and, 64 resources for, 234–245 self-directed learning and, 55–56 steps in becoming, 60–61 teaching career case study and, 228–231 vision statements and, 62–64 Inquiry Cycle, 48–49 Inquiry Synthesis Project, funded by NSF, 10 Instructional pie evaluation, 57–59 Interruptions in classroom limits, and time management, 154 Investigation of contour lines case study, 158–162 Invitation to Inquiry, and mechanics of inquiry, 101, 106–107, 111–112 Isopods or pillbugs (Armadillidium vulgare) case study, 42–48 Johnson, S., 60–61 Jordan, L., 192 Journals, for inquiry-based teachers and teaching, 39, 83, 147, 221 Karplus, R., 83 Kendall, J., 169 Kotter, J., 60–61 Laboratory experiments data tables and graphs deletion and, 131

debates about, 141–142 density demonstrations and, 135–136 density misconceptions and, 133–134 description of, 124–125 “going further” addition and, 132 guided inquiry and, 136–139 hydrate laboratory case study and, 142–144 materials revisions and, 130 placement of laboratory activity at beginning of inquiry and, 129–130 prelaboratory assessments and, 128 procedural errors provided in inquiry and, 131 procedure revisions and, 130–131 questions for reflection and discussion and, 144–145 questions revisions and, 130 results section redesign and, 131–132 safety rules and guidelines creation and, 130 scaffolding argumentation and, 134–135 self-directed inquiry and, 139–140 Seven Segments of Scientific Investigation and, 127 structured inquiry and, 136 tradition laboratory modifications and, 125–128, 132–133 Language, and constructivist learning model, 83 Lao-tzu, 55 Lawson, A., 29, 83, 147 Learning process for adolescents constructivist learning model and, 77–78 description of, 77–78 preconceptions or prior knowledge and, 77–78 Lederman, N. G., 5 Lesson plans, and time management, 150 Life Sciences Learning Center (LSLC), 92, 97 Limits on answering questions by teachers, and teachers’ questioning skills development, 175–176 Literacy standards in science and technical subjects, 24–25, 239–240 Llewellyn, D., 21, 33, 112, 157 Locke, J., 66 Lockstep approach avoidance, and classroom management, 154–155 Loucks-Horsley, S., 185 Love, N., 185 LSLC (Life Sciences Learning Center), 92, 97 Magic glue activity, and scaffolding argumentation, 30–31 Marek, E., 83 Marshall, J., 61, 157 Martinello, M., 17 Marzano, R., 2, 169 Materials revisions, and laboratory experiments, 130 McComas, W., 114 McTighe, J., 193

255

256

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

Mechanics of inquiry bottle ecosystems case study and, 114–119, 246 demonstrated inquiry and, 102 description of, 100–101 differentiated inquiry and, 112–114 discrepant events and, 102–103 FLRSMN case study and, 119–123 four levels of instruction or Invitation to Inquiry and, 101 guidance for student inquiry and, 107–112 guided inquiry and, 105–106 questions for reflection and discussion and, 123 self-directed or student-initiated inquiry and, 106–107 structured inquiry and, 103–105 Media influence, and argumentation, 18–19 Mediocrity, and inquiry-based teachers and teaching, 64 Metacognition, and constructivist learning model, 76–77 Michaels, S., 28, 165 Misconceptions. See also Preconceptions by students density and, 133–134 inquiry-based teaching and, 57 students and, 77–81, 133–134 Multiple assessments, 195 Mundry, S., 185 Mystery box activity, and scaffolding argumentation, 29–30 Myths, about inquiry-based teachers and teaching, 57 Nagel, G., 148 National Academy of Science, 13 National Research Council (NRC). See also Framework for K−12 Science Education, A (NRC) argumentation and, 23, 26–28 assessment and, 190, 193–195, 205 constructivist classroom culture strategies and, 90 exploratory questions and, 179, 184 inquiry and, 3–5, 9 Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards Generation Science Standard and, 4 laboratory experiences and, 125–126, 141–142 metacognition and, 76 NSES and, 3–4, 14, 22–23, 147, 217–218, 219 preconceptions and by students and, 66 questioning skills development for teachers AND, 164 National Science Education Standards or NSES (NRC), 3–4, 14, 22–23, 147, 217–218, 219. See also National Research Council (NRC) National Science Foundation (NSF), 10, 13 National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), 13, 28 Next Generation Science Standards or NGSS (NRC) argumentation and, 21, 23, 26–28, 233 classroom culture of inquiry and, 90, 233

constructivist learning model and, 90 inquiry and, 4–5, 12, 13, 147, 233 inquiry-based teachers and, 219 laboratory experiences and, 142 Non-inquiry teachers arguments, and inquirybased teachers and teaching, 56–57 Norton-Meier, L., 20 Novak, J., 151 NRC (National Research Council). See Framework for K−12 Science Education, A (NRC); National Research Council (NRC) NSF (National Science Foundation), 10, 13 NSTA (National Science Teachers Association), 13, 28 Objectivism, compared with constructivism, 66 O’Sullivan, C., 127 Pellegrino, J., 151–152 Philosophy for inquiry. See Constructivist learning model Piaget, J., 71–73, 81 Pillbugs (Armadillidium vulgare) or isopods case study, 42–48 Pinkerton, K., 212 Posner, G. J., 82 Praise and positive reinforcement effectiveness, and teachers’ questioning skills development, 176 Preconceptions by students, 77–81. See also Misconceptions Prelaboratory assessments, 128, 206–208. See also Laboratory experiments Pretzel theory, and inquiry, 9 Procedural errors provided in inquiry, and laboratory experiments, 131 Procedure revisions, and laboratory experiments, 130–131 Professional development plan design case study, 184–187 Professional organizations, 243–245 Purpose of questions, and teachers’ questioning skills development, 165 Questioning skills development, for teachers Bloom’s Taxonomy and, 166–169, 177, 185 description of, 164–165 exploratory questions, 179–184 expository questions and, 169 limits on answering questions and, 175–176 praise and positive reinforcement effectiveness and, 176 professional development plan design case study and, 184–187 purpose of questions and, 165 quality questions as model for quality thinking and, 169–170 questions for reflection and discussion and, 187–189

INDEX

recalibration of skills and, 178–179 Seven Segments of Scientific Investigation and, 179–183 techniques for questioning and, 170–175 tips and suggestions for, 176–178 Wait-Time Monitoring Chart and, 189 Questions, and authentic assessment, 198–199 Questions for reflection, 51–52 Questions revisions, and laboratory experiments, 130 Rajesh, H., 21, 33 Rathgeber, H., 60–61 Reading standards for literacy in science technical subjects, 24 Reagan, T., 214 Realistic view, of scientists’ work, 37–38 Reasoning types, and argumentation, 28 Recalibration of skills, and teachers’ questioning skills development, 178–179 Reculturing classroom norms and relationships, 222–228. See also Classroom culture of inquiry and argumentation Renner, J., 83 Resources for inquiry and argumentation general science areas print resources and, 241 inquiry-based teachers and teaching resources and, 234–245 investigations in science and, 236–238 literacy in science and technical subjects print resources and, 239–240 multimedia, 241 online, 241–243 science print resources and, 236–241 Results section redesign, and laboratory experiments, 131–132 Romey, W., 230 Ross, D., 19 Routines and daily rules, and time management, 150 Rowe, M. B., 173 Rubrics, for authentic assessment, 196–197 Safety rules and guidelines creation, and laboratory experiments, 130 Sampson, V., 29, 39–40, 157 Sattes, B., 145 Scaffolding inquiry and argumentation. See also Inquiry-based teachers and teaching description of, 29–37 fossil footprints activity and, 30 laboratory experiments and, 134–135 magic glue activity and, 30–31 mystery box activity and, 29–30 sponge eggs hatching activity and, 32–33 verbal prompts during tasks and, 33, 37 Schweingruber, H., 28, 165 Science. See also Argumentation; Inquiry general areas science print resources and, 241 professional organizations and, 243–245

resources in print and, 236–238, 241 SMOP and, 157 standards for literacy in, 24–25, 239–240 STEM and, 2, 125, 184 students’ interest in, 218–219 Science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), 2, 125, 184 Science Management Observation Protocol (SMOP), 157 Science News (journal), 175 Science Teacher, The (journal), 39 Scientific American (journal), 67, 175 Scientific argumentation. See Argumentation Scientific inquiry. See Inquiry Scientists’ work, realistic view of, 37–38 Scoring guides, for authentic assessment, 196–197 Self-assessment , and authentic assessment, 202–205 Self-directed inquiry. See also Students inquiry-based teaching and, 55–56 laboratory experiments and, 139–140 mechanics of inquiry and, 106–107 Seven Segments of Scientific Investigation, 6–9, 127, 179–183, 199, 222–223, 225. See also Inquiry; Science Shiland, T., 127 Shouse, A., 28, 165 SMOP (Science Management Observation Protocol), 157 Sponge eggs hatching activity, and scaffolding argumentation, 32–33 Staker, J., 20 Standards for literacy in science and technical subjects, 24–25, 239–240 Starter or essential questions, and time management, 149 STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics), 2, 125, 184 Stevens, D., 196 Stiles, K., 185 Strike, K. A., 82 Structured inquiry laboratory experiments and, 136 mechanics of inquiry and, 103–105 Structured interviews, and authentic assessment, 201–202 Student comprehension, and time management, 149, 150–151 Students. See also Self-directed inquiry classroom culture of inquiry and, 216–219 group work by, 153, 218 guidance for inquiry by, 107–112 higher-level thinking skills utilization by, 218 inquiry-based classrooms and, 216–219 misconceptions by, 77–81, 133–134 preconceptions by, 77–81 researchers as description for, 217–218 science as interesting for, 218–219

257

258

TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION

Teacher-initiated inquiry, and guidance for inquiry, 105–106 Teachers and teaching, as inquiry-based. See Assessment; Inquiry-based teachers and teaching; Questioning skills development, for teachers Teaching career case study, 228–231 Techniques for questioning, and teachers’ questioning skills development, 170–175 Tests assessment choices and, 194–195 time management and, 153, 154 Time management. See also Classroom management action-oriented tasks and, 149–150 concept maps and, 151–153 core concepts focus and, 150 daily rules and routines and, 150 description of, 148–149 directions for tasks and, 150–151 essential or starter questions and, 149 group size limits for tasks and, 153 interruptions in classroom and, 154 lesson plans and, 150 questions about tasks and, 150–151 student comprehension and, 149, 150–151 take-home tests and quizzes and, 154 test review limits and, 153

time limits for tasks and, 153 workstation organization and, 151 Traditional learning model classroom environment and, 215–216 constructivist learning model versus, 66–70 laboratory modifications and, 125–128, 132–133 Transitions, and assessment modifications, 205–206 Treagust, D., 78 Van Scotter, P., 212 Verbal prompts, during scaffolding argumentation, 33, 37 Visions and vision statements, 62–64, 90–91 Vygotsky, L. S. ., 74–75, 186 Wait-Time Monitoring Chart, 189 Walsh, J., 145 Weiss, A., 127 White, C., 61, 157 Wiggins, G., 193 Windschitl, M., 88–89 Workstation organization, and time management, 151 Writing standards for literacy in science technical subjects, 24–25 Yeast case study, 91–99 Youngson, R., 83

The Corwin ravenacross striding an open book—represents thecourage The Corwin logo—alogo—a raven striding anacross open book—represents the union of union Corwin of courage and learning. is committed education and learning. is committed to Corwin improving educationtoforimproving all learners by publishing for all learners by publishing books and other professional development books and other professional development resources for those serving the field of resources for those serving the field of PreK–12 education. By providing PreK–12 education. By providing practical, hands-on materials, Corwin continues to practical, hands-on CorwinEducators continues to outWork the promise carry out the promise of itsmaterials, motto: “Helping Docarry Their Better.” of its motto: “Helping Educators Do Their Work Better.”