20 Mar
Managing Inquiry-Based Experiences in the Science Classroom
Posted in Uncategorized on 20.03.10
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.

