3/23-Elizabeth-Inspecting Inquiry

Both articles this week discussed the importance of student agency and inquiry, and the importance of a deeper understanding of scientific concepts over barely touching upon all topics. 

The Sampson and Gleim article focused on the Argument Driven Inquiry approach, which emphasizes collaborative explanation and argumentation along with the incorporation of other subjects, such as reading and writing.  Included within this article are the 8-steps of ADI, including the beginning identification of a scientific phenomena, collaborative work of forming refining explanations through argumentation, and final student reflection.  According to the researchers, by collaborating and making each other’s explanations and arguments visible, students look at their own reasoning and way of knowing to revise their argument and help lead to a consensus. 

In his article “BGiuLE,” Reiser focuses on the importance of authentic student explanation driven inquiry through the use of technology supported learning activities.  One comment that Reiser wrote that I thought was critical was “constructing a technology-infused curriculum requires designing both classroom-based activities that prepare students for complex software investigations and off-computer-activities interspersed with students; work on software, that set the student interactions with the technology in a broader set of social interactions.”  Oftentimes when I have thought about technology within the classroom, I see the use of technology as a completely separate entity.  However, Reiser does a good job in creating clear scaffolds (which slowly build up to the computer programs) and showing how one can include multiple media into a lesson in a logical way to benefit the students.  In what he calls his “staging” activities, he tells his readers to use familiar learning strategies/materials, such as worksheets and data sheets, where students can analyze the data in a more confortable setting and be more willing to begin asking those deep-thinking questions before moving onto the more technology based instruction and learning.  I really liked this part of his article and found it very useful.  Reiser also talked about “generality” versus specificity in the supportive tools used.  While he does not push for one or another, I think is a topic that hasn’t been discussed thus far in the class but one this is very important.  While there is a benefit to having a general scaffolding tool, such as a computer program, there are also benefits to having more tailored programs where students can manipulate more things and observe more outcomes.  Thus, at this point in school, what should possible computer models look like?  Should schools strive for a common program across domains for more detailed, tailored programs for individual domains? In a sense, the model that Caitlin and I are modifying supports generality, as it can be used across the domains of Chemistry and Biology,  

Major themes:

·      The importance of inquiry, argumentation and explanation within the learning of science, their interdependence, and their use to make science more engaging.

·      The importance of collaboration in fostering this development of scientific knowledge and the need for peers in helping critique and reconstruct consensus explanations.

·      Making science meaningful and applicable for students is critical for student success, participation, and interest in the sciences

·      Classroom environment is key for success-create an environment where students will not be afraid to come up with faulty explanations, not just the “right” one and “the intimidation factor” as Sampson states does not become an issue. (468)