developing theory of practice
Most students seemed to really enjoy this interactive group project, particularly the use of technology, the opportunity to perform research like 'real scientists', and the opportunity to learn collaboratively rather than just sit and listen to the teacher. Though I realize that not all students will pursue research or science career paths, I believe that all scientifically literate students should have a basic understanding of what science is and how scientists perform research. Students should understand that scientists develop explanations about natural phenomena by planning and carrying out systematic investigations, analyzing data, clearly and persuasively communicating their findings, and learning from the findings of others (Pratt, 2012). We need to help students to “see [scientific] knowledge and understanding as something that is developed, at least in part, through dialogue” (Osborne, 2007, p. 180). In our classroom this year, my classroom mentor and I have modeled these practices with students on a number of different occasions.
During our unit on macromolecules, students completed a lab in which they investigated enzyme activity in a variety of conditions. We designed this lab as an inquiry rather than a “cookbook” lab (a straight forward lab with no room for student choice or judgment) (NRC 2000). For this lab, students had to write their own hypotheses and design their own investigation procedures (see page 2 of the lab packet). Different lab groups investigated different conditions. Some student-designed investigations included changing temperature (hot vs. cold vs. room temperature), pH level (acidic vs. basic vs. neutral), and enzyme source (lactase pills vs. probiotic pills). This inquiry activity required students to practice collaboration and discussion skills on a number of levels – sharing ideas and findings within their own lab groups, with the teacher, with other lab groups, and with the class as a whole. I observed that, in most lab groups, lab partners communicated comfortably and efficiently with each other. This happened in person during lab periods and online on Google Docs during lab report composition. Each lab member had certain sections of the lab reports assigned to them to complete, as discussed and determined by the lab group as a whole.
Lab groups also shared their research design and findings with the whole class before submitting their lab reports, an experience similar to that of scientists presenting findings at a research convention. In contrast to the constant discussion and collaboration that I observed in small lab groups during lab periods, this whole-class discussion proved difficult for me to facilitate. I began simply by asking that any group share their results. No one raised a hand. As I relate in a reflective journal entry from this lesson, “it took much coaxing and some cold calling of the students to complete the discussion...Although certain groups did similar experiments, groups were not willing to describe the variations in results they may have found.” Eventually, we were able to hear from 3 of the 8 lab groups in 3rd period and 4 of the 8 lab groups in 4th period, though I had wanted to hear from all lab groups (the summary of student research findings can be seen in this Inspiration artifact from class.) While I did not survey or interview students to investigate the reason for this hesitancy, “I suspect that the students feared being 'wrong'; if their experiments led them to a conclusion different than that of another group, then they must have done something incorrectly” (personal reflection). Also, as we had not performed this data sharing activity before, students may not have understood how to communicate their conclusions or what the purpose was in asking for everyone's conclusions. I plan to continue using inquiry labs in my classroom in the future, as they are an important way to emphasize the process of discovery in science; however, I plan to better scaffold this data discussion process from the beginning of the school year onward. Specifically, I could make it a requirement for lab groups to create one PowerPoint slide that includes their procedure and conclusions to help them organize and share their research findings.
During our unit on macromolecules, students completed a lab in which they investigated enzyme activity in a variety of conditions. We designed this lab as an inquiry rather than a “cookbook” lab (a straight forward lab with no room for student choice or judgment) (NRC 2000). For this lab, students had to write their own hypotheses and design their own investigation procedures (see page 2 of the lab packet). Different lab groups investigated different conditions. Some student-designed investigations included changing temperature (hot vs. cold vs. room temperature), pH level (acidic vs. basic vs. neutral), and enzyme source (lactase pills vs. probiotic pills). This inquiry activity required students to practice collaboration and discussion skills on a number of levels – sharing ideas and findings within their own lab groups, with the teacher, with other lab groups, and with the class as a whole. I observed that, in most lab groups, lab partners communicated comfortably and efficiently with each other. This happened in person during lab periods and online on Google Docs during lab report composition. Each lab member had certain sections of the lab reports assigned to them to complete, as discussed and determined by the lab group as a whole.
Lab groups also shared their research design and findings with the whole class before submitting their lab reports, an experience similar to that of scientists presenting findings at a research convention. In contrast to the constant discussion and collaboration that I observed in small lab groups during lab periods, this whole-class discussion proved difficult for me to facilitate. I began simply by asking that any group share their results. No one raised a hand. As I relate in a reflective journal entry from this lesson, “it took much coaxing and some cold calling of the students to complete the discussion...Although certain groups did similar experiments, groups were not willing to describe the variations in results they may have found.” Eventually, we were able to hear from 3 of the 8 lab groups in 3rd period and 4 of the 8 lab groups in 4th period, though I had wanted to hear from all lab groups (the summary of student research findings can be seen in this Inspiration artifact from class.) While I did not survey or interview students to investigate the reason for this hesitancy, “I suspect that the students feared being 'wrong'; if their experiments led them to a conclusion different than that of another group, then they must have done something incorrectly” (personal reflection). Also, as we had not performed this data sharing activity before, students may not have understood how to communicate their conclusions or what the purpose was in asking for everyone's conclusions. I plan to continue using inquiry labs in my classroom in the future, as they are an important way to emphasize the process of discovery in science; however, I plan to better scaffold this data discussion process from the beginning of the school year onward. Specifically, I could make it a requirement for lab groups to create one PowerPoint slide that includes their procedure and conclusions to help them organize and share their research findings.
Page 6