Jake's Blog

Over the course of four weeks, the innovative unit plan discussed in detail in the previous sections was implemented across five sections of 6^th Grade Life Science at Twelve Corners Middle School. Working collaboratively with fellow Warner graduate student Carli Moochler and cooperating teachers Tom Wimer and Dave Connelly, I had the opportunity to engage the students in a relevant and meaningful hands-on minds-on inquiry-based experience dedicated to the investigation of invertebrate animals and the connections which exist between all members of the Animal Kingdom. While not without challenges, the overall unit seemed to provide vital insight both into the students’ capabilities to conduct authentic scientific investigations as well as their understanding of and appreciation for living organisms. In addition, the students were able to contribute to the established community of learners as scientists and develop the conceptual understandings necessary to build connections between concepts and content through these experiences.

A persistent challenge throughout the unit was the students’ desire for a “correct answer.” Conditioned to receive information and regurgitate facts and “understandings,” my students struggled with the task of initiating and, in some instances, participating in an authentic independent investigation. In order to alleviate many of these concerns and frustrations, the unit was scaffolded in such a way so as to allow students to participate in experience-first opportunities that provide insight in the various components of the unit and help generate ideas regarding individual implementation. As such, through this open-inquiry-based unit, students engaged in a differentiated investigative opportunity that allowed for individualized participation and the development of unique ideas regarding content.

In addition, regardless of the intensive planning that went into the unit prior to implementation, unexpected last-minute changes were often necessary. For example, during shipment of some of our organisms from California, one of the boxes was destroyed and those creatures had to be re-ordered, setting our original schedule back by a few days. In addition, the starfish unfortunately did not survive the transfer into the established salt-water environments; as such, the students assigned these organisms had to change investigations at the last-minute so that they could still participate. Lastly, because of previously scheduled school-wide events, we often had to shorten portions of the unit, change classrooms, and adjust the prescribed order of some components which may have had an effect on the overall outcome of the unit. However, I believe that we were able to adapt well and still provide a unique and meaningful opportunity for all our students as a means of allowing them to connect with the material through authentic investigations.

Overall, the students seemed thoroughly engaged throughout the unit as it incorporated components which allowed the teams to design, implement, and analyze their investigation with a living specimen based on initial background research. Providing students with a field journal detailing the various components of the unit, scaffolding specific portions with discrepant events and concrete examples, and allowing peers and instructors the opportunity to share perspective and feedback, I feel that we designed and implemented a thoughtful and relevant inquiry-based experience that allowed students to physically engage with material as a means of gaining further insight into the Animal Kingdom. As a fellow instructor shared with me, “I was just grading an ELA practice test that my students took today, and they had to read two different passages.  The first one was about birds and how we modeled airplanes after a birds ability to fly, and the second was about different types of cat fish. The question read ‘If you were an animal which would you choose and why?’ (using examples from EACH story to support your answer) and Diarra Bell, wrote “Whoever wrote this question clearly doesn’t know that humans ARE animals, but if I had to be a different animal, I would choose a bird.” I thought it was pretty funny and that you might enjoy it.   I guess they learned something while the student teachers were here!!!”

Just a little insight for my colleagues into the debate among scientists…

While watching The Blind Side this evening with my fiancee, I was struck by the portrayal of the educators at the beginning of the film. The main character, “Big Mike,” is seen as a young, low achieving, black man, an individual with an IQ of 80 who has yet to find success in a traditional education environment and is placed in an upper-class white private school. Several scenes focus on Michael’s teachers, their conversations about him and his apparent lack of motivation and skills. He is viewed as stupid and unable to learn. However, a single educator (a biology teacher at that!) sees potential and realizes that by focusing on Mike’s strengths, they can work collaboratively to improve upon his perceived weaknesses.

Soon this science educator is able to convince her fellow teachers to use alternative means to assess Michael’s progress and he is able to realize his own abilities. By doing so, he is able to improve his grades such that he is allowed to participate in football – an opportunity which will forever change his life.

Similarly, other individuals in his life recognize that any educational experience is an individualized process and that by getting to know Michael, one is able to help him succeed.

Why are many educators so “blind” to the fact that IQ numbers and outward appearances are not indicators of potential and ability? Why are so many educators ready and willing to give up on students so easily? Education experiences are meant to be and need to be individualized to ensure success across the board.

As Michael states in the film:

“Courage is a hard thing to figure. You can have courage based on a dumb idea or a mistake, but you are not supposed to question adults or your coach or your teacher. Because they make the rules. Maybe they know the best or maybe they don’t. It all depends on who you come and where they come from. Didn’t at least the six hundred guys think of giving up and joining with the other side. I mean The Valley Of Death! That’s pretty salty stuff. That’s why courage is tricky, should you always do what others tell you to do. Sometimes you might not even know why you do something. I mean any fool can have courage. But honor, that’s the real reason you do something or you don’t. It’s who you are and maybe who you want to be. If you die trying for something important then you have both honor and courage and that’s pretty good. I think that’s what the writer was saying, that you should hope for courage and try for honor and maybe even pray that the people telling you what to do have some too.”

It is incredible to think (and sometimes hard to believe) that student teaching is OVER. For the past 7 months, these experiences have provided great insight in my future career and, for the most part, have consumed my life (not a far stretch from the experience I anticipate next fall – hopefully!). Now that I have 8 more hours each day, I was thinking what I would do with my time. Then it dawned on me…Jake, you are FAR from done!

Even  though the experiential component of my education has been completed, I must draw upon these unique and influential opportunities as a means of reflection to articulate the theories and practices which I intend to incorporate into my future classrooms. In order to engage my students in relevant and meaningful science, I must recognize what worked, what didn’t go as planned, changes I would make, and how my methods promote my ideas about how science should be experienced.

Observations and student teaching have been amazing experiences for me as a pre-service teacher. I have had the opportunity to collaborate with a variety of educators, administrators, staff, students, and parents in an attempt to gain greater insight into education, refine my practice, hone necessary skills, and try out a lot of different methods of providing experiences for students in science. While I have a long way to go, I feel more confident in my ability as a future educator and feel that though there will be mistakes and stumbling blocks along the way, I’m on the right track.

It was almost a year ago that I decided to make a drastic change in my “life plan” and enter the Warner School as a means of gaining necessary training and experience to become a science educator. Though I was met with resistance and surprise at first from family and friends, I believe that for the first time, I feel that I am doing what I should be doing for myself, my fiancee, and our future. Though the journey is just beginning, I am excited at the prospect of where the road will take me…

As our program is quickly coming to end and I will be getting married and moving in less than three months, the unknown is becoming increasingly daunting. Even though I feel that I am a competent science educator and have many experiences under my belt which have worked to inform my practice and provide insight into ways to engage students in meaningful science, the “waiting game” is excruciating. In addition to the challenge of finding a job as a first-year teacher, my fiancee and I are moving to Ohio in July, compounding the undertaking. While reciprocal agreements are in place between many states, the process of obtaining certification in New York, transferring that certification to Ohio (and retaking competency exams – what fun!), AND applying for jobs is challenging at best. Also, finishing at Warner, planning a wedding, and preparing for a move are definitely keeping me busy.

While I am typically not a nervous person, as I will be responsible for my fiancee’s welfare as well as my own, not knowing whether or not I will be gainfully employed in August is more than a bit frustrating. I realize that many others (including all in our program) are in the same boat, and my hope is that we will all find employment with ease! Each day I pray that at least one of the 40 cover letters and resumes I sent out recently will garnish a response…

Over the past week, Carli and I have experienced the successes and struggles that accompany the implementation of authentic open-inquiry based opportunities in a science classroom. In his article Managing the Inquiry Classroom: Problems & Solutions, author Lawson (2000) presents the following suggestions (described in the specific context of our Invertebrate Animal Investigations):

1. Some students do not participate enough – As we were using living specimens, most of our students were excited at the prospect of engaging in such an experience. However, as with any classroom situation, there were times when students were off task and not engaged. As I had the opportunity to circulate through the room during each of the lessons and assess individual progress, I was better able to ensure that a greater number of the students were participating. In addition, the students were aware of the expectations of the project at the start of the unit as they were provided with an outline of each day’s objectives as well as a rubric detailing how they would be assessed.

2. Some students do not know how to get the inquiry started – For many of our students, the idea that a question may not have a right or wrong answer is quite foreign. As a means of facilitating our open-inquiry, Carli and I designed a scaffolded structure to our unit through a Field Journal which allowed students to experience individual components of the process of doing science through hands-0n, minds-on opportunities integrated with peer and teacher feedback.

3. Some students do not care and do not see the inquiry as relevant to their lives – As a means of provided a relevant experience, we constructed an essential question which builds connections between humans and invertebrate animals: “How are humans animals? How are animals human?” It is our hope that through this project, students will have the opportunity to draw their own conclusions and reevaluate their misconceptions of what it means to be an animal and why sessile poriferans and humans are in the same kingdom of living organisms.

4. Some students do not listen – On a regular basis, students read directions, are asked to repeat what we will be doing for the day (as a means of checking for understanding), and are frequently asked questions about their individual progress throughout the lesson. In this manner, each student can be assessed on their comprehension of important directions. In addition, introductory directions and instruction are kept to minimum so as to allow for enough time to complete objectives and so as to prevent “zoning out.”

5. Some students lack background knowledge for inquiries – As previously mentioned, this unit builds upon prior exposure to content regarding living things as is scaffolded in such a way so as to allow each student to engage in an individualized manner.

6.Some students do not want to think for themselves-they just want to be told the right answers – Our students hopefully have realized the some questions do not have right or wrong answers as long as evidence is provided to support the claim. Through this experience, students have had the opportunity to develop an investigatible question, propose a prediction, design and implement an authentic inquiry-based experiment, collect and analyze data, and draw conclusions based in evidence. As such, these scientists have conducted research which hopefully has provided insight not only into the Animal Kingdom, but also into the process of doing science.

7. Some students are bored – For the most part, the students were extremely engaging in the project. However, at certain points, student focus waned and they had to be directed back on task. As we were conducting our experiments, the majority of “boredom” or  loss of focus stemmed from unexpected results or uncooperative animals. We dealt with these situations as they arose and tried to explain to students that science is unpredictable and that we can draw conclusions from whatever results they find.

8. Some students socialize during lab – For this investigative opportunity, students were instructed to pick a partner with whom they felt they could work well every day for approximately 4 weeks. As such, many student chose close friends as partners which increases socializing during class. However, I was able to circulate throughout the class to ensure that the focus remained on the project and objectives for the day, reminding students

9. Some students participate too much – In order to ensure that ALL students are participating and giving less enthusiastic or outgoing students the opportunity to contribute their ideas and questions, I made sure to call on students how didn’t always have their hand in the air. If they didn’t know “the answer” or were a bit off base, I worked consciously to allow other students to provide insight rather than telling them the “correct response,” if there was one.

10. Some students do not clean up after themselves – As the author suggests, we as a class discussed the importance of respect for materials in an investigation and how multiple classes had to have the opportunity to use the available resources. In addition, each day I was sure to “time out” the students approximately 5 minutes before the bell so that we could leave the room better than we found it.

11. Some students cheat and plagiarize the work of others – As the author states, this is particularly difficult as many times (as in this project) students are encouraged to collaborate with fellow students. In order to help alleviate this issue, each of our students will be assessed individually and are responsible for contributing to the development and participation in class presentations as well as submitting a completed field journal at the conclusion of the project.

Lawson, Anton E. (2000). Managing the inquiry classroom: Problems & solutions. The American Biology Teacher, 62 (9), p. 641-648.

In a presentation regarding teachers’ unions and, specifically, the Rochester Teachers’ Association, RTA President Adam Urbanski emphasized the need for educators to provide their students the opportunities to uncover content and concepts rather than utilizing the 180 days of the school year to cover material which constitute a particular curriculum. By doing so, we are working to actively engage students in the own educational experience and allow them to individually process information as a means of building relevant conceptual understandings.

As a means of incorporating this philosophy into our professional practices, Carli and I have worked (seemingly without much sleep!) to create  a collaborative community of learning scientists in our sixth grade class through authentic Invertebrate Investigations. Each day we have the privilege of observing our students engaged in open inquiry and, as exhausting (and sometimes frustrating) as this experience has been so far, it is extremely rewarding to see these young minds contributing to their own education and that of others by uncovering understandings of what it means to be an animal.

Not without its frustrations, this unit thus far has been extremely insightful for not only the students, but also for myself and Carli as educators. It is my hope that I can continue to plan such experiences for my future so that they have the opportunity to engage in science and contribute to the experience of all in our established community of learners. As such, these experiences, founded in national and state standards, not only prepare students for established assessments but also provide them the opportunity to uncover content and concepts.

As we began our innovative unit this week, Carli and I have both experienced the uncertaintly that often accompanies inquiry-based experiences in the science classroom. We have observed that because so many of our students are high achievers, they have become conditioned to know and, in many instances, regurgitate the “right” answer. This quest for “correctness,” however, does not fit our plans for the innovative unit as students will be conducted authentic investigations using a chosen invertebrate as a means of gaining insight into the beginnings of the Animal Kingdom.

Even though the first week of our unit was, in my opinion, an overall success, I can’t help but reflect on this need to bring students out of their comfort zone so that they may have the opportunity to do science as a means of engaging in independent discovery. As “uncomfortable” as my students may be right now (many of them constantly ask “Is this right?”), I believe that this open-inquiry experience will be extremely beneficial within and outside the sciences and will provide students with confidence knowing that they developed, designed, and implemented an investigation and presented their findings, as scientists, to their community of learners as a means of contributing to the field.

In order to scaffold the students in this new and obviously daunting endeavor, Carli and I have incorporated a variety of “mini-lessons” that provide insight into the components of the unit. For example, following the first two days of background research, students were prompted to record questions that they had about their organism. We then utilized the Elephant Toothpaste demonstration and a subsequent class discussion based on recorded observations and questions related to the demo to introduce investigatible questions and why many questions are not testable. In addition, to prepare students for writing detailed protocols, Carli and I incorporated a short PB & J activity in which the students gave the instructor directions for making a peanut butter sandwich.

Hopefully these activities paired with constant student-teacher conferencing and teacher feedback will provide the students the scaffolding necessary to “take the leap” into the unknown of inquiry-based investigations. We can sense their excitement about the project (as not a period goes by when someone doesn’t ask “When are we getting our animals?”). It is our hope that this experience will set the stage for further independent discovery as a means of building conceptual understanding of the “big ideas.”

This week, Carli and I, through our planning, observed our students demonstrating their abilities as scientists in a variety of ways. The level of active engagement among my students continues to amaze me and it pushes me to go further in my own practices to develop and implement meaningful and relevant experiences for them. These opportunities are proving mutually beneficial as we all work collaboratively as members of a community of learners.

Our plans this week, in my opinion, were well thought out, well prepared, and well executed. I’m constantly grateful for the opportunity to work with Carli as I believe that our strengths as pre-service educators complement each other very well. We have the opportunity to bounce ideas off another person on a regular basis, receive immediate and thoughtful feedback, and utilize the “two heads are better than one” mentality in the planning and execution of our ideas. In addition, our cooperating teachers have been extremely supportive and excited about our plans both past and future and are more than willing to help us in our very ambitious endeavors while simultaneously helping us to improve our practices.

Carli, in her blog, did a great job of detailing the successes of our lessons from this past week which emphasized student choice and worked to prepare our students for our upcoming open inquiry-based unit on animals as well as allow us the opportunity to assess individuals on their ability to design and implement an inquiry-based investigation. Not only did this week’s components work to guide our further instruction but also helped to demonstrate conceptual understandings through a variety of modes.

The next four weeks will be an interesting time for our community of learners as we will be implementing our innovative unit – details regarding our unit can be found below. We are excited at the prospect of designing such an experience for our students and we hope that it will be as beneficial and educational for them! Updates to follow as we put our plans into practice!

INNOVATIVE UNIT – “How are humans animals? How are animals human?”

Aligned with the New York State Standards-based curriculum designed by the Brighton Central School District, this unit will continue the study of living organisms and focus on an Introduction to the Animal Kingdom and a study of Invertebrates, building on past investigations of bacteria, protists, and plants. Specifically, students will engage in the development of understanding of the essential question “How are humans animals? How are animals human?” as a means of continuing their investigation of living organisms, the evolution of species, and the interrelationship between living things and their environments. Under this umbrella of an Introduction to Animals, students will have the opportunity to build conceptual understanding of the characteristics unique to members of the Animal Kingdom, how scientists classify these organisms, the evolutionary changes which have allowed for the diversity of the group, the interactions of specific phyla with their environments, and the means by which the structure and function of these organisms optimize them for survival in such environments.[1]^,[2]

Students will, working in pairs, select an organisms of a specific phyla from a pre-determined list to research. Using a variety of research tools and media, the students will gain background knowledge about the organisms, its environment, and the ways in which it interacts with its environment and other organisms. Students will also engage in a variety of foundational experiences meant to prepare them for the investigative portion of the innovative unit.

Using the background information they have compiled regarding their organism, student pairs will develop an investigatible question meant to provide greater insight into the organism as a living thing and the ways it interact which its environment. Great emphasis will be placed on investigatible questions and if the developed questions can be tested or not. Students will then work collaboratively to design an investigation to test their question and then implement the design given necessary materials (teachers will need to supply various living organisms and any other materials for implementation). During the investigation, students will be working towards developing insight into three questions:

1. Developed investigatible question

2. How is this organism human?

3. How are humans the organism?.

A field journal will be constructed prior to the beginning of the project so as to organize findings and allow students to work at different paces while still completing the investigation in a timely fashion.

Students will present their findings to the class. Findings should include background information, their question and conclusions drawn from the investigation, and a relation to humans. Students will have a wide range of options for the presentation of their findings and the audience will be provided with graphic organizers to compile information and findings.

In addition, students will engage in the dissection of earthworms as a means of building connections between the understandings they have developed through an investigation to another closely related organisms. They will also have the opportunity to relate observations of external structure and function to internal structure and function as a means of building further conceptual understanding of the relationships between them.

As a final piece, each class will work to develop a concept map around the essential question as a means of visualizing the connections between the investigated organisms and our perceptions of humans which will work to connect not only to previously discussed content and concepts but prepare the students for further study of other members of the Animal Kingdom.

---

[1] Daniel, Lucy, Rillero, Peter, Biggs, Alton, Ortleb, Edward, & Zike, Dinah. (2005). “Introduction to animals.” In Life Science (pp. 328-355). New York: Glencoe Science.

[2] Daniel, Lucy, Rillero, Peter, Biggs, Alton, Ortleb, Edward, & Zike, Dinah. (2005). “Mollusks, Worms, Arthropods, Echinoderms.” In Life Science (pp. 328-355). New York: Glencoe Science.

Over the past two weeks I have had the distinct opportunity to work with a very competent, creative, and innovative science educator. Because of this collaboration, both our students and our practices as teachers will benefit immensely and I am enjoying the experience. I wholeheartedly believe that as science is a dynamic field and as teaching is a dynamic profession, collaboration is necessary to enhance the educational experience for students and allow teachers the opportunity to self-assess, receive constructive criticism, and develop innovative ideas for the constant improvement of one’s practice.

There are many ways in which educators can (and should!) collaborate for the development of a productive, healthy, and ever-progressing educational environment and experience. Co-teaching can provide teachers the opportunity to incorporate a variety of instructional and assessment methods into the classroom as well as facilitate the integration of increased literacy, use of technology, and recognition and explorations in to the social, economic, and historical impacts of scientific discoveries.

Likewise, the use of cross-discipline teams can also work to provide students the opportunity to build connections between socially-constructed content areas and utilize and hone a variety of skills in new applications. This method of collaboration can also enhance the educator’s experience and allow for the development of new and innovative ways of engaging students in their learning.

Lastly, discipline-specific teams can work to bridge the gaps between the “sciences,” evaluate student and teacher performance, identify what works and problem solve what doesn’t, and work to ensure that the curriculum, instruction, and assessments work to emphasize and reinforce the development of conceptual understanding of the “big ideas” of science.

We encourage our students to work collaboratively to identify misconceptions, build and assess understanding, and make connections across disciplines – why don’t we, as educators follow the same mantra?