Showing posts with label conducting inquiry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conducting inquiry. Show all posts

Friday, September 2, 2011

The Evolution of a 21st Century Educator -- post #37

Anyone that is involved in education has heard the phrases “21st century education” and “21st century learners” ad infinitum. I don’t know their origin but these words, and more importantly, their meanings slowly crept up on us during the last decade or so.
There are a wide variety of educational, and other, resources which attempt to define and expand on what 21st century education is, or should be. One of the most succinct and comprehensive is Learning for the 21st Century: A Report and Mile Guide for 21st Century Skills , an American publication from the Partnership for 21st Century Skills.              
It is outside of my purpose for writing this blog post to argue for definitions around any of the “21st century . . . “terms. If you are unsure of what I am referring to by these terms, this publication is a good overview of what I understand them to be and I am using this as my standard reference.
This summer I started purging all the paper I have accumulated over my ongoing career as an educator. This included filling recycling boxes with dozens of obsolete Ministry, Board and School publications but much more interesting was the walk-through-time that my own personal binders provided. I have taught many courses over the years; suffice it to say that my binder portfolio included 90% of every science course that ever existed in the province of Ontario along with a smattering of courses from completely unrelated subject areas. Being the type of person I am I have always kept beautifully organized binders for each of these courses, and the more times I taught the course the bigger and more numerous the binders became.
So here is what I observed as I purged through my personal binders. At the beginning of my career I used a lot of material that I photocopied from other educators. These included worksheets, projects, assignments, and even tests. The notes for the students were long and detailed, I would write them word by word onto the blackboard and they would sometimes spend entire periods copying them down. In fact, I remember the advice of my mentor, a master-teacher, gave me during my first year teaching when I had a particularly unruly class, “Just keep them copying out notes all period and they won’t have time to cause any trouble.” Now, I am horrified to think that I actually took this advice and relished in its effectiveness!
Over time the work in my binders became more and more my own. Beautifully designed and produced worksheets, text book activities and lab assignments. All the labs were strictly “cookbook” labs with the purpose, safety, materials, procedure all precisely laid out step-by-careful-step. Observation tables and questions were purposely designed to keep the student tightly focused on the task, analysis and discussion questions flowed one from the other and the conclusion was not even always present! Oh, how magnificent these labs were! The preparation for them, although time consuming, was a very exact affair and I would often leave my classroom at night with everything methodically set up for the next day’s lab -- exactly the right number of beakers, and other required equipment laid out next to my carefully measured and prepared solutions of which I would have neither too much nor too little because I knew exactly what would happen during the upcoming lab.
Do not think, dear reader, that I was alone in my anal ways of teaching high school science. My techniques were widely admired and my resources eagerly sought after by colleagues both near and far. I was well respected for never asking the students a question whose answer could not be found on a specific page of our current text book, for integrating literacy and numeracy throughout my curriculum (before it was cool) by the use of teacher guided practice, for running carefully controlled labs whose outcome was never in doubt and which never took longer than the allotted time. Oh yes! I would proudly share my work with anyone that was interested and even gave workshops and made presentations highlighting my wonderful skills. Imagine how flattered I was when publishers took an interest in my magnificence!
But that was then and this in now. As I continued purging my beautiful binders I could see how my teaching had gradually shifted over time. Some of the change was prompted by the powers that be but most of it was in direct response to what worked and what didn’t work, a little thing we like to call “personal reflection” in the teaching field. Lessons that at one time worked like a well oiled machine had to be tweeked as the nature of the learner changed. Rather than stress myself out because the students no longer carefully read the cookbook lab prior to doing it, sketched out the equipment set up and even answered the analysis questions prior to lab day it was much easier to meet them where they were.
At the time I would have described my evolution as “choosing my battles”, after all one has a finite amount of energy, but in retrospect I see it now as being respectful of who the learners were and what worked for them. Gradually I learned to release control yet facilitate the learning occurring. As the years passed, my binders became less dictatorial and more loosey-goosey. Instead of going from day one to day ninety with rigid lesson plans for each and every day they started to reflect the unit we were working on the “big ideas” that we needed to cover on a weekly basis.
My classroom labs changed from being teacher-directed and controlled as well. Over time I started producing lab handouts with less and less detail filled in thereby allowing the students the opportunity to think about what we were doing. I did, however, keep control of what the lab purpose was; but I expected them to do more of the design, observations and analysis themselves.
Luckily for my students, as the 21st century progressed I became familiar with the Smarter Science way of teaching science. This approach is strictly inquiry based with the students not only designing and conducting the labs themselves but also coming up with the purpose, or question. Through brainstorming the students generate a list of questions that they are wondering about. Then, they answer the ones they can through research. Due to having 21st technology in the classroom this research component can be incredibly quick, even as short as five minutes, depending on what the questions are and what strategy the teacher employs. No more booking the library, searching through vertical files, card catalogs and encyclopedias for this generation! Instant access to quality information is the order of the day. The advent of the Internet has truly been a game changer in our quest for knowledge.
After finding the answers they can by research, the students are now left with maybe one or two outstanding questions. Following the Smarter Science framework and 21st century educational philosophy it is time for them to design their lab investigations to answer the questions they are wondering about. This means they have already established a purpose for doing the lab.
Developing hypotheses often flow from a combination of knowledge acquired during their self directed research and ensuing lively classroom discussions. The teachable moment here is the concept that all hypotheses are acceptable, proving them right or wrong is the point of the lab investigation. Literacy is also naturally built in as the teacher demonstrates the correct method of wording a hypothesis. Since each student “owns” their hypothesis they want to learn how to state it correctly, there is nothing rote or boring about it.
In my binders, which I am now thinking about as historical archives, I actually had activities where I gave the students the crux of the hypothesis and they had to phrase it correctly and even worse than that, labs with the hypothesis given! No wonder there wasn’t any critical thinking happening in their poor little minds.
Once the students have determined for themselves why they are doing the lab (purpose) and what they think the outcome will be (hypothesis) all that  is left for them to do is the fun stuff –design, perform and analyze the lab. This is where it is essential that the teacher is an expert in their field because they are the ones ultimately responsible for the safety of their students. They must ensure that nothing the students propose could potentially cause any harm. They must also be prepared to advise student on various techniques in a just-in-time teaching manner. This means that we teach the technique when the student needs to use it, not when it is on the next page of the text book.
In my binders I had an entire lesson plan with the objective of learning to use a graduated cylinder! I used overheads to show a picture of a meniscus and distributed worksheets with diagrams of graduated cylinders for the students to read the volume level. No actual graduated cylinder was ever in play! I am so embarrassed! And this was a lesson plan I really liked and shared widely!
As I conclude this blog post the recycle truck is actually rolling up my street. Three recycle boxes full to over flowing are being heaved over the side of the truck; all my 20th century teacher “gold” is being hauled away. It was fun while it lasted but nothing compares to the excitement of teaching the 21st century way! I wonder what great discoveries my students will make this year, and in the years to come?

Saturday, June 18, 2011

Father's Day blog Posting -- #36

Father and Daughter
This blog posting is the entry I sent in to the Geekdad contest in an effort to win some cool geek electronics. Although I did not win it lead me to reflect on where my affinity for inquiry-based learning came from. If this story isn’t a classic inquiry than what is? Thanks Dad!

Here is my Geekdad story:
Many years ago I was engaged to be married. Although I was 100% sure I wanted to be married to the man of my dreams I was not so keen on the actual wedding ceremony. Though a series of compromises the wedding was scheduled for 10 o’clock on a Monday morning. Following the church ceremony there would be a sit down lunch catered by some church ladies, the bride and groom would leave on our honeymoon and the partying would continue at my parent’s house. My parent’s house, which is my childhood home, is a large Cape Cod style house that has seen many parties over the years. These parties include some fantastic teenage parties that my sister and I would host when my parents and brothers went on summer vacations without us. (We couldn’t go! We had to work!)  For sure there had been at least 200 kids in our house dancing and jumping up and down on a number of occasions and although there were a number of consequences on a variety of levels the house itself withstood all the partying unscathed and unchanged.
Family Home
This is where the Geek Dad part comes in. My dad, a trained engineer, spent weeks prior to my wedding day fretting, wandering around the house with a measuring tape and  his trusty slide ruler while scribbling little calculations on scraps of paper and the back of napkins. You may think he was upset that his baby girl was marrying, that he was designing a new suit for himself, or that he was calculating the cost of all these shenanigans. But no! This is not how Geek Dads think! What he was actually doing was calculating how great a load the floors of our family home could withstand. What if there were so many people in the house that it collapsed! This was a very real worry for him!
Naturally, like all good daughters, when my Geek Dad tried to talk to me about the consequences of the partying continuing at our family home I just laughed at him. Who ever heard of a house collapsing from the load on the floors during party? I have been at  many parties and I have never heard of such a thing, have you? Our family home is a sturdily build wooden two story house, we had never had any indication that the floors might collapse. All the woodwork was in tiptop condition. Stop worrying, Geek Dad!
The night before my wedding day my father must have conceded that the after-party would, indeed, be at the family home. The father-of-the-bride is easily lost in the shuffle of wedding plans and he had definitely lost this battle. (The story of the force that is my mother shall be told another day!) As a last resort Geek Dad enlisted the help of our Best Man.  He showed him all of his calculations and explained, as only an over wrought engineer can, the potential danger of the wedding guests enjoying one last cup of tea at our family home the next day. To his credit our Best Man listened politely and nodded attentively as my dad instructed him to make the rounds during the wedding feast and dissuade everyone from attending the after-party. He did not, however, act on these carefully laid plans of subterfuge. 


The wedding went off without a hitch, the wedding feast was enjoyed by all, my new husband and I drove off into happily-ever-after and the after-party was in full swing until the wee hours of the morning. Did the floors cave in? Did the house collapse? What do you think?
I love you, Geek Dad!




Monday, May 9, 2011

People's Choice voting Now Open in Google Science Fair 2011

Recently I had the pleasure of being the only Canadian judge in the Google Science Fair which is open to all 13 - 18 year olds worldwide.

The thousands of entries have been narrowed down to the top 60 and the public can now judge them for themselves.

You do not have to be a science teacher to be impressed with the awesome entries you will see here:
  • http://www.google.com/events/sciencefair/vote.html
Be sure to vote in each age category!

Send me a tweet @EurekaTeacher and let me know what you think of the entries.

Saturday, February 26, 2011

Judging the Google Global Science Fair – post 21

I am excited to report that I have been invited to serve as a preliminary judge for the Google Science Fair 2011! This is the first time that Google has sponsored a Science Fair. They have partnered with CERN, the LEGO Group, National Geographic, and Scientific American to attract the brightest, best young scientists from around the world. Youth Science Canada, which includes Smarter Science, is the exclusive Canadian educational partner for this activity and is working to ensure that young Canadian scientists are well represented in the competition. Youth between the ages of 13 – 18 have the opportunity to work digitally, globally and collaboratively to present their projects.

Judges, including me, have been chosen from a panel of teachers and university professors from around the world for the first and second round of judging. As a judge I do not have to leave the comfort of my own home! Simple access to a computer with an internet connection along with some online training provides me with the confidence to access and evaluate the online submissions!

Entries that make it through the first round of judging then go on to be checked for scientific accuracy. Fifteen finalists will be flown to Google headquarters in California where they will present their projects before a panel of acclaimed judges including Nobel Laureates, tech visionaries and household names. (No, not including me!)

So in making a global Science Fair a sensational event for youth Google has also made it a wonderful opportunity for the humble science teacher, like me, to engage in our global village of digital opportunities!

Friday, February 4, 2011

Testing the Absorbency of Paper Towels and the Sham-wowTM! -- Part Three

Part Three – Using the Smarter Science Framework to Perform, Record, Analyze and Interpret the Inquiry

(Posting 18)

Okay! So my grade nine / ten Essentials Grade Nine Science class has spent two days preparing to conduct an experiment to determine which type of towel is the most absorbent. The three types they have to choose from are brown paper towels like those found in school washrooms, white paper towels common in most North American kitchens and the Sham-wowTM a commercial product advertised for its absorbency. I spent the first day getting them engaged in the concept of the inquiry that we would be performing (see blog posting 16). Then we spent the next day using the Smarter Science elementary framework to plan our controlled test of the three paper towels (see blog posting 17).

You may be thinking that this is way too much time to invest in a science experiment, there is curriculum to cover, facts to memorize, textbooks to read and tests to write! I would like to counter any of these arguments with the reply that I have been using the Smarter Science framework in my classroom for some time now with the result that the students have an enduring understanding of the process of science and they have become able to think critically about a wide variety of concepts, not limited to science. As a veteran teacher I have often struggled with the question “But how do I get them to think?” I have read a plethora of books, taken too many courses, sat through endless hours of professional development and tried countless strategies to develop students’ metacognitive skills but it was not until I started using the Smarter Science framework in my classroom that I felt that the students were actually developing their metacognition.

The posters we used are available in pdf format on the Smarter Science website. Because my students have weak literacy skills I chose to complete one master set for this experiment which I had prominently displayed in my classroom. As the students entered my classroom today I met them at the classroom door and gave them a photocopy of the bottom half of page 4 as they entered with the instructions that the only other item they needed today was a pencil.

Together we reviewed the process we had gone through yesterday wherein we had ended by determining the question we wanted to explore. The question is: “If we change the type of towel what will happen to how long it takes to clean up (time)?”

The students were instructed to complete the handout I had given them of step five individually. This included changing the words “We” to “I”. Every single student completed the first half with: “I predict that the Sham-wowTM will be the best.”

They struggled a lot more with the second sentence starter, “I think this will happen because . . .” They wanted me to tell them what to write. Again I had to convince them that it was what they think, not what I think, as long as that is what they think then their answers will be right. There was a huge tendency to copy from the few risk takers who took the chance to fill in their thoughts so I had to ask them to turn their papers over when they were done. An additional problem I encountered was that due to the weak literacy level in the class some students asked me how to spell particular words, which is a practice I encourage with these learners. However, what happened today was when others heard what words were being requested they used those words in their answers. Thinking is a real challenge but one I now feel competent to deal with!

Eventually everyone had something written down. Some examples of their answers included, “I think this will happen because . . .

· the Sham-wowTM is made of fabric.”

· it is better.”

· material is good.”

· it is expensive.”

We referred back to poster3, step 3(b) on which we had written our three unchanged variables: blotting or rubbing, amount of water spilled, and amount of time spent cleaning up. Collaboratively we decided on the values to give each of these variables. They were:

· Blotting only, no rubbing

· Amount of water spilled = 25 mL

· Size of towel = 10 cm x 10 cm

I wrote these values right onto the poster for the students to refer to.

Almost ready to perform and record! We decided the instruments we would use would be the 25 mL graduated cylinder for the amount of water spilled. Consequently, we had some “just in time” teaching while I demonstrated how to use the graduated cylinders. We also decided to use pencils and rulers to measure out 10 cm x 10 cm squares of each towel and scissors to cut

Next we designed our observation table onto which we would record our data. We drew them right on the back of the small handout the students had used to make their predictions.

Type of towel

Volume of spill

Size of towel

Time to clean up

Brown paper

25 mL

10 cm x 10 cm


White paper

25 mL

10 cm x 10 cm


Sham-wowTM

25 mL

10 cm x 10 cm


I did not worry about the fact that they were only going to do one trial with each type of towel. We can only cover so much ground at once! We can get into multiple trials and reproducibility another time.

Measuring out a 10 cm x 10 cm square onto the towels was very challenging for some of these students, as was cutting the squares out. After helping all of them cut one square out I showed them how to use it as a template for the next towel rather than measuring a new square out. In the future I may prepare some cardboard templates for the students who struggle with their fine motor skills. It would also be an opportunity to have a peer helper or buddy come into the classroom to help measure and cut the squares.

The students were happy to be measuring out their squares and using the graduated cylinders. I was pleased when one asked me if they should put their goggles on. I told them it was okay because we were only using water so they would be safe but they were disappointed so I got the goggles out and made them optional for this lab. About half of the students put them on, I have observed time and again that students like to be “real” scientists and do what a “real’ scientist would do.

The students were even more delighted that they were allowed to “spill” water onto the lab counter. As they performed the lab they required verbal cues to remind them to “blot not rub” and “don’t start blotting until you look at the clock”. In order to facilitate timing I had the students work in pairs, but each person performed the entire lab. This allowed them to focus on either timing or blotting at one time instead of both thereby ensuring that data got collected and recorded.

By the time everyone had performed the inquiry, recorded their data and cleaned up I had them all pass in their little handout for marking. There was much more learning than what was recorded on that paper but it allowed me, as a classroom teacher, to have some evidence of the students’ accomplishments so I could record something in my mark book.

There are so many extensions that could be done with this inquiry we could probably do nothing but this for the entire semester. Here are some questions that the students had while doing the inquiry:

· I wonder if the Sham-wowTM works as well after it has been washed.

· I wonder if the blue Sham-wowTM works as well as the orange sham-wows.

· I wonder how the no-name Sham-wowTM from the Dollar Store compares.

· I wonder why they don’t put Sham-wowTM in all the washrooms.

· I wonder why they don’t make diapers out of the Sham-wowTM?

· I wonder how the Sham-wowTM compares to an ordinary towel.

· I wonder if I could use the Sham-wowTM to dry my dog.

It is these questions that provide evidence to me that the students are engaging their metacognitive skills, and that is the power of Smarter Science!

Thursday, February 3, 2011

Testing the Absorbency of Paper Towels and the Sham-wowTM!

Part Two – Using the Smarter Science Framework to Design and Conduct the Inquiry

(Posting 17)

If you read my previous blog posting you know that I spent a considerable amount of time laying the ground work for today’s inquiry. The students I teach in this class are teenagers yet they all have high needs and a multitude of exceptionalities which results in them working well below grade level.

Today, when the students came to class I greeted them at the door, as usual. On my desk I had the same three items as yesterday – a roll of brown paper towels, a roll of white paper towels and an orange Sham-wowTM , however, there was no spilled water on the front counter. Taped up on the front board I had the set of four Smarter Science posters that are recommended for use at the elementary level.

We quickly recapped yesterday’s lesson wherein we had observed spilled water and discussed which type of towel would clean it up the best.

“What happened to the spill, Miss?”

“Which towel did you use to clean it up?”

Imagine the students surprise when I told them that I did not clean it up! Instead I left it there when I went home yesterday and when I came back today it was gone.

“The custodian must have cleaned it up” quickly became the class consensus. I asked if anyone had any other ideas of where it might have gone. Sadly, they didn’t so it was up to me to suggest that it might have evaporated. This led to a lengthy discussion about evaporation. The example that most students seemed to be able to relate to was puddles disappearing when the sun comes out. Although they all came around to accepting that evaporation is real there remained a great deal of uncertainty about how long the process would take.

“Let‘s talk about the observations we made today and yesterday” I said as I drew the students’ attention to the first poster at the front of the room. Step One, collectively we came up with three observations:

  • Miss spilled water yesterday.
  • Miss has towels that could clean up the spill.
  • Where did the spilled water go?

“Looking at these three observations, what does it make you wonder?” (Still step one of the Smarter Science framework.)

  • Was it really water?
  • Why did she spill it?
  • How much water did she spill?
  • Who cleaned it up?
  • Which towel works better?

Although the students had deviated from the intention of the “WONDER” box I did not correct them since they were completely engaged, on track and offering excellent questions. (The “wonder” box is intended to be used for the students to speculate as to the answers they posed in the “observe” box.)

Moving on to step 2(a) of the Smarter Science framework, on the second poster, we worked together as a class to brainstorm the answer to “What could we measure or observe about the spilled water?” We recorded our ideas on pink sticky notes.

  • How much water was spilled? (initial volume)
  • How long does it take to clean up? (time)
  • How much water gets soaked up by the towels? (final volume)
  • How big is each type of towel? (size)

These questions lead us directly to step 2(b): “What could we change or vary about the object or the event that may affect what we could measure or observe?” These items were listed on yellow sticky notes.

· Amount of time spent cleaning up

· Blotting or rubbing with the towel

· Size of the towel

· Type of towel

· Amount of water spilled

All of the ideas listed above came directly from the students. A different group of students may come up with a completely different list. That does not mean one list is better than the other. As long as they stay on task any list is correct. The students need to receive continuous positive verbal feedback and reassurance that there is no such thing as a stupid idea in science class. In fact, some of the best discoveries in science have come from what others considered “stupid ideas”. One of my own personal favourites that I use to describe this phenomenon is that of Galileo Galilei, but I digress.


Moving onto poster three, step 3(a) we had to decide what we would change. This choice was limited by the yellow sticky notes we had placed in the box for step 2(b). It was decided that our changed variable would be the type of towel used. This decision was prompted by reminding the students that what we wanted to test, today, was which type of towel was the most absorbent. Consequently, the yellow sticky note reading “type of towel” was placed on the “changed variable box” of step 3 (a).

Our next decision was how we would measure of observe the result. This process was starting to go over the heads of some of the students plus their attention was starting to lag but when I told them that this was really a multiple choice question and all they had to do was choose one of the pink sticky notes from step 2(a) for us to put there they perked back up. The choices we had previously recorded on pick sticky notes in step 2(a) were:

  • How much water was spilled? (initial volume)
  • How long does it take to clean up? (time)
  • How much water gets soaked up by the towels? (final volume)
  • How big is each type of towel? (size)

We voted to determine that the quantity we would measure would be time and we would use the second hand on the classroom clock to measure it. So the pink sticky note that read “How long does it take to clean up? (Time)” was moved to the appropriate box on poster three.

Step 3(b) on poster three asks “What will we not change?” so the remaining yellow sticky notes were moved here.

Moving on to poster four all we had to do was move the pink and yellow sticky note from poster three, step 3 (a) onto step 4. Therefore it read, “If we change the type of towel what will happen to how long it takes to clean up (time)?”

Eureka! We have successfully initiated and planned a controlled experiment! But . . .we are out of time.

The students are told that tomorrow they will start by making their predictions and then we will be able to get on to the actual experiment!

“Yay! Another day with no work! We love science!”

See the next blog posting : Testing the Absorbency of Paper Towels and the Sham-wowTM!

Part Three – Using the Smarter Science Framework to Perform, Record, Analyze and Interpret the Inquiry (Posting 18)