INSES: Inquirey & National Science Education Standards

The INSES article discusses a few different ways to think about inquiry, including examples of how inquiry is part of science but also how teaching through inquiry should be done. The article offers myths about teaching though inquiry and how to properly engage students through the 5 essential features of inquiry. One of the most influential aspects of the INSES is that the standards are consistent and progressive as the student progresses from Kindergarten to graduation. Consistent practice and exposure is an excellent way to ensure successful understanding and application of inquiry based science education. From the perspective of a future teacher, I like how the article points out that inquiry is not just a concept for students to understand, but also a process to be experienced. The teacher can introduce topics, but the students' curiosity and questions guide the process of learning through inquiry. Inquiry is an important skill for students, not just in science education, but also something to be used in everyday life. The article reads, "In this way, teachers can help all their students understand science as a human endeavor, acquire the scientific knowledge and thinking skills important in everyday life and, if their students so choose, in pursuing a scientific career." By engaging students in the 5 essential features of inquiry, I will be helping the students become life long learners that use these skills in everyday situations, whether they pursue a career in science or not.  Inquiry can be a very important thought processing strategy.

Activitymania

Activitymania involves pre-packaged cookie-cutter, hands-on science activities that are often used at the elementary level to "engage" students in science experimentation. However, as the article points out, "conceptual understanding and scientific literacy are not facilitated by this practice."  A better way of teaching science is through inquiry, which allows students to identify patterns and relationships in the world around them; asking questions and designing investigations to answer those questions according to their interests. One of the biggest flaws of activitymania, in my opinion, is that students know what the expected outcome is, so they disregard results that don't line up with the expectation and lose interest because their questions remain unanswered in the process.  But, activitymania remains popular because it "ensures science concepts will be addressed in the classroom".  What the producers of activitymania fail to realize though, is that ensuring that concepts are addressed is not the same as ensuring that students receive quality science education and understanding of those concepts. I feel fortunate that my preservice teacher training is focusing on teaching science as inquiry, where students' misconceptions are identified and addressed through higher order cognitive skills, like inquiry.  I will be able to better engage my students in scientific inquiry because I will have experienced how participating in this type of learning is more beneficial to retention and understanding. I will also be familiar with how to assess for understanding (formative and summative) and have an idea of how to incorporate scientific investigations into my classroom without relying on Activitymania.

Batteries, Bulbs & Wires

Our experiments:

  

Article Reflection:  Ms. Stone's BB&W kits are similar to the Yellow lab sheet we were given in our lab, where the step by step instructions are laid out.  The lab is a success in that all the students get their bulbs to light, but Ms. Stone's students are not engaged - they haven't a deep interest (their fidgety) and they haven't asked a scientific questions about electricity to investigate.  Also, the students are simply following instructions. They're not finding evidence, they're not evaluating evidence or explaining any kind of inquiry - they're simply making a light bulb work based on directions they've been given to connect some wires and batteries. This is just like what we did in the yellow lab - it's very teacher-centered and ineffective for reaching students' understanding.

Ms. Travis begins her lab by challenging the students' beliefs about electricity.  This is a good way to engage the students and assess for prior knowledge.  She presents the students with a challenge - to explore the flashlights - but without giving them too much information as to why. This helps to engage the students in forming their own inquiry. When she begins the experiment, she gently guides them to be more successful (by suggesting they strip the ends of their wires) but she's not instructing them on how to perform the experiment or piece their circuit together. Ms. Travis' experiment proceeds with additional challenges to the students, new questions forming and sharing and collaborating. Finally, students are allowed to research the answers to their questions online and discuss how other sources of light work.  This is more in-line with the pink lab we did, but I would argue that Ms. Travis' investigation was even better than that - providing students with much more information, more challenges and inquiry and a better understanding of what they're learning. Ms. Travis also provided the students with personal connections to make it more meaningful to the students.

Cool-It Lab - Inquiry Continuum

Weather Standard Homework

Iowa Core Reflection

 

• Iowa.gov
• Agencies
• Online Services

Search All of Iowa.gov...

Search all State of Iowa websites:

X

As I was reading the Iowa Core Standards for Science, there were a few words that kept jumping off the page to me - investigate and apply knowledge.  These words allow me to see that Iowa has embraced the importance of explorative learning in science, and believe in pushing students to the high end of Bloom's Taxonomy.  For each major content area, the students aren't just to be able to understand the concepts, they also need to be able to apply them to investigations and new discoveries of knowledge. By mandating that students "plan and conduct scientific investigations" and "use evidence to develop reasonable explanations", Iowa is creating students who can analyze and synthesize material and think critically. 
For me, the content of the science curriculum is secondary to the application of skills and concepts that students gain from participating.  The other language that spoke to me in the Iowa Core was "Instruction should be engaging and relevant and strong connections must be made to students' lives." I think this is essential to creating a meaningful learning experience which benefits the students in the long run.  Students are far less likely to remember something that wasn't relevent to their lives.  Students are likely unaware of how important science is to their very existence, and may not make that important connection on their own if they are just given the "knowledge" with no application or analysis.   

MOSART Tutorial

When it comes to misconceptions, I really like how the researchers approached the subjects in the video tutorial.  They were asking questions like "Where'd that come from?" and "How did you know that?" They were allowing the children to explain their theories without interruption or correction. I predict that if the tutorial had continued on the with the same teacher and students, the teacher would have challenged the students to make sense of their theories through experimentation (that's what I would have done, and what was demonstrated by the blood soup activity for the heart).  Having been a "gifted" student myself, I can recall being reprimanded by my teachers and parents for "over-thinking" things and making them more difficult and complicated than they should have been.  What my teachers and parents didn't understand was that my "complicated" way of thinking was the way that made the most sense to me in the context of my life and knowledge.  For kids to make sense of things, they have to be able to fit an idea/theory into the world that they know best.  For several of the kids in the video, it made sense to draw some of the veins blue because that's what they see in diagrams (including the one right behind them) and under their own skin.  One of the most interesting parts of this tutorial for me was how many different explanations were given for the reasoning behind the blue veins.  (http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/smgphp/mosart/Tutorial.html?action=mis&type=text)

I like how the tutorial labels the students' theories as preconceptions, rather than misconceptions.  I agree that misconception implies some sort of incorrect knowledge or thinking.  On the other hand, preconceptions implies that there is knowledge the child has yet to learn in order the shape their ideas or theories about a certain topic.  In this way, even if the child has a preconception about something (say that blood contains Helium), they'll be able to amend that theory once they've explored the components of blood further. 

** Fun fact:  We make blood soup in some of our children's programming at work!**