J Phys Tchr Educ Online 3 February 2005 Page 4 2005 Illinois State University Physics Deptscience This article originated as a result of discus ID: 885157
Download Pdf The PPT/PDF document "J Phys Tchr Educ Online 3 February 2005..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
1 J. Phys. Tchr. Educ. Online (3), Februa
J. Phys. Tchr. Educ. Online (3), February 2005 Page 3 © 2005 Illinois State University Physics Dept.The strength of a concept rests in its ability to organizeinformation. What at first appears to be disorganized body ofa jumble of disorganized but interrelated procedures. Teachers J. Phys. Tchr. Educ. Online (3), February 2005 Page 4 © 2005 Illinois State University Physics Dept.science. This article originated as a result of discussions heldrather succinctly that there is a difference between a lesson andlab would be mostly controlled by the student. At this point iteffectively using inquiry.nature of scientific inquiry. If one is to follow conventionalincreasingly complex inquiry processes. They will repeatedlymodel appropriate actions, and then fade from the scene allowingBasic Hierarchy of Pedagogical PracticesHerron (1971), the author here proposes a more extensiveoffer some suggestions as to the nature of associated inquiryprocesses. Table 1 shows the various pedagogical practicesmentioned thus far in relation to one another. It should be notedfrom the table that levels of inquiry differ primarily on two bases:(1) intellectual sophistication, and (2) locus of control. The locuslearning through hypothetical inquiry. The thought processescontinuum. As will be seen, inquiry labs and hypothetical inquirycan be subdivided further.be operationally defined; in a corresponding sidebar story, eachadditional insights. The author will use a common topic fromphysics buoyancy to describe how different levels ofphysical topic and to effectively promote learning of inquiryon the Eureka! I have found it! approach. The focus ofbut, rather, on constructing knowledge from experiences. Asunderstanding. The teacher introduces an experience in such a DiscoveryLearningInteractiveDemonstrationInquiryLessonInquiryLabHypotheticalInquiry High Locus of Control Student Table 1. A basic hierarchy of inquiry-oriented science teaching practices. The degree of intellectual sophistication andlocus of control are different with each approach. SIDEBAR STORY 1: Example of Discovery Learning In this activity, students are first questioned about thephenomenon of buoyancy. They are asked to recollect certaineveryday experiences, say, while swimming
2 and manipulatingsuch things as beach ba
and manipulatingsuch things as beach balls or lifting heavy submerged objectssuch as rocks. If students have not had such experiences, theyare asked to submerge a block of wood under water. Theyforce. They then can be led with effective questioningforce. The teacher might then present one or more guidingwhether an object floats or sinks in water? The teacherprovides students with objects of varying density, suggestingunderstanding of the concept. Various objects are then placedin a container filled with water. Some sink, others float. Theof the objects and whether or not they sink or float in water.If provided with the density of water, students can generate aobjects with densities greater than that of water sink in water.Alternatively, students conclude that objects with densitiesof less than one float in water, whereas objects with densitiesgreater than one sink in water. J. Phys. Tchr. Educ. Online (3), February 2005 Page 5 © 2005 Illinois State University Physics Dept. An interactive demonstrationscientific apparatus and then asking probing questions about what(explanation). The teacher is in charge of conducting thestudents reach conclusions on the basis of evidence. The teacherthat are identified. The teacher models appropriate scientificto the interactive demonstration. However, there are severalimportant differences. In the inquiry lesson, the emphasis subtlyshifts to a more complex form of scientific experimentation. Theremaining in charge by providing guiding, indeed leading,questioning strategies. The teacher places increasing emphasisthe system. The teacher now speaks about scientific processof inquiry. The teacher models fundamental intellectual processesresponding to questions. This is in effect scientific inquiry using SIDEBAR STORY 2: Example of Interactivea floating object. They experience the upward buoyant force.body is submerged in the water. Once the object is entirelysubmerged, the buoyant force appears to become constant.buoyant force is greater than their weight. When such objectsbetween the weight of an object suspended in air, the weightof that object suspended in water, and the buoyant force?The teacher, for the sake of simplicity, then restricts thescale and asks how the spring scale might be used to measurethe buoyant force on a sinking object. Clearly, the buo
3 yantsuspended in water. If the students
yantsuspended in water. If the students are familiar with forceone that is more quantitative. Eventually, the students realize) for sinking objects is the difference). This will then lead to the students concluding that thedifference between these two values is the buoyant force.When asked to define that relationship mathematically,Note: Place a metal object on a spring balance with the objectsuspended in air above the surface of a container full of water.by an object submerged in a liquid?Note: Following student responses, submerge the objectentirely in water.Why is there a difference between weight of this objectNote: Its because of the buoyant force.liquid given the objects weight in air and in water?on a scale into the water. Read out the changing weight untilfactors affect buoyancy which they will later address in an J. Phys. Tchr. Educ. Online (3), February 2005 Page 6 © 2005 Illinois State University Physics Dept.protocol. This approach will more fully help students understandthe nature of inquiry processes. This form of inquiry lesson isand laboratory experiences. This is so because it is unreasonable An inquiry lab is the next level ofan experimental plan and collecting appropriate data. These datavariables. This inquiry lab approach is not to be confused withthe traditional cookbook laboratory activity. The distinctioninquiry) and true inquiry-oriented labs is profound. The majordistinguishing factors are presented in Table 2. See sidebar storyThree Types of Inquiry Labcan be broken down into three types based upon degree ofsophistication and locus of control as shown in Table 3 guidedinquiry, bounded inquiry, and free inquiry. This table displaysappropriate inquiry practice to fading from the scene. A guided SIDEBAR STORY 3: Example of an Inquiry Lesson Again turning to the topic of buoyancy, what might aninquiry lesson involving buoyancy look like? An exampleand weight, composition, density, shape, size, and volume ofthe object. They then are asked to suggest ways to test whetheror not each of these factors does indeed influence buoyancy.simplicitys sake, noting that work with floating objects willcome later.)difference?Note: It does make a difference. We must be able to controlIs the buoyant force experienced by a submerged objectNote: Test with a clay object formed into
4 different shapes.Does the buoyant force
different shapes.Does the buoyant force experienced by a submergedNote: Test with a rectangular metallic block oriented alongthree different axes.Is the buoyant force experienced by a submerged objectNote: Test using two different sized objects of the sameNote: Test with aluminum and copper ingots of identicalNote: Test using liquids of different density such as freshwater, alcohol, oil, glycerin, and honey.conducted in proper relative order. (For instance, the shapeor orientation tests might be affected by depth if depth isntfirst ruled out.) There is a regular discussion of scientificmethodology, making students aware of the procedures of aaffect buoyancy are identified, students will next design and J. Phys. Tchr. Educ. Online (3), February 2005 Page 7 © 2005 Illinois State University Physics Dept.inquiry lab is the next level of inquiry practice beyond the inquirylesson. The guided inquiry lab, like the bounded inquiry lab tofollow, is a transitional form of lab activity leading ultimately tothe free inquiry lab approach in which students act with completequestion or problem to be solved. With each successive approach, The guided inquiry lab ischaracterized by a teacher-identified problem and multipleleading questions that point the way to procedures. A guidedand energy in this system. or Gather empirical evidence froma pendulum to determine whether or not energy is conserved inthe relationship between gravitational potential energy andkinetic energy. Then, as students progress through the lab, theyof the lab. While the guided inquiry lab can and must bemore advance forms of inquiry, it is not sufficient as a completetransitional form. Again, teachers must model more advancedremove scaffolding, as students become better inquirers afterleading questions. They might be required to make simpleformulating a logical basis for conducting an experiment. A pre- Inquiry Lab TypeQuestions/Problem SourceProcedures Guided inquiryTeacher identifies problem to be Bounded inquiryTeacher identifies problem to beFree inquiryStudents identify problem to be Distinguishing characteristics of inquiry labs by type. Cookbook labs:Inquiry labs: minimum intellectual engagement of students therebyare driven by questions requiring ongoing intellectualengagement using higher-order thinking skills making for foc
5 us students activities on collecting an
us students activities on collecting and interpreting datato discover new concepts, principles, or laws thereby by experience or implicitly; students execute imposedexperimental designs that tell students which variables torequire students to create their own controlled experimentaldesigns; require students to independently identify,distinguish, and control pertinent independent and commonly allow for students to learn from their mistakesand missteps; provide time and opportunity for students to employ procedures that are much more consistent withauthentic scientific practice; show the work of science to be Some major differences between traditional cookbook and authentic inquiry-oriented lab activities. J. Phys. Tchr. Educ. Online (3), February 2005 Page 8 © 2005 Illinois State University Physics Dept.lab. Without having a model to follow, students might betold to do science. This can lead to the frustration and lack ofFree Inquiry Labinquiry labs will start off with a teacher-identified problem aswell as all or part of the experimental design. This contrastsmost likely will be closely associated with a semester-long orcapstone science project. They are great outlets for giftedstudents. More than likely, free inquiry labs will be conductedHypothetical Inquiry The most advanced form of inquiryand testing. Hypothetical inquiry needs to be differentiated fromunderstand or to make with their students. A prediction is aAn example of a prediction is, When I quickly increase thevolume of a gas, its temperature will drop. The prediction hasno explanatory power whatsoever, even though it might be alogical deduction derived from laws or experiences. A hypothesisis a tentative explanation that can be tested thoroughly, and thatcan serve to direct further investigation. An example of abatteries are dead. To test this hypothesis, one might replace thesupposedly bad batteries with fresh batteries. If that doesnt work,a new hypothesis is generated. This latter hypothesis might havebroken wire. Hypothetical inquiry deals with providing andtesting explanations (usually how, rarely why), to account forwo Types of Hypothetical Inquirylabs, hypothetical inquiry can be differentiated into basic forms pure and applied each associated with its own type ofapplied science, pure and applied hypothetical i
6 nquiry differ.Pure hypothetical inquiry
nquiry differ.Pure hypothetical inquiry is research made without anyexpectation of application to real-world problems; it is conductedof nature. Applied hypothetical inquiry is geared toward findingapplications of prior knowledge to new problems. The two typesprocesses; they tend to differ on the basis of their goals. TheyPure Hypothetical Inquirywhy the intensity of light falls off with the inverse square ofdistance, how conservation of energy accounts for certaincurrent and energy, and how Newtons second law can accountfor Bernoullis principle. In the current set of examples dealingwith buoyancy, a teacher could ask students to explain from aphysical perspective how the buoyant force originates. Byextension, the students might attempt to explain Archimedeshypothesis development and testing. Through this form ofinquiry, students come to see how pure hypothetical reasoning SIDEBAR STORY 4: Example of a Guided Inquiry An extensive pre-lab discussion helps students toattain the specific objective(s). Using the previousconservation of energy student performance objective as anexample, consider the following line of questioning that mightdetermine whether or not energy is conserved in therelationship between gravitational potential energy andkinetic energy?b)How would we figure out the amounts of kinetic andpotential energies at various points within the system?c)Which points should be chosen and why?d)What sort of data should we collect at these points?e)How will we convert the raw data into kinetic energyand potential energy?f)What would we expect to see if energy is conserved?What factors might affect the outcome of thisexperiment? Gravity? Friction? Amplitude? Mass?h)Do we really need to actually control all such variablesi)How might we control confounding variables if suchj)Given the fact that we cant very well control frictionenergy in a system), how close is close enough to saythat energy actually is conserved? J. Phys. Tchr. Educ. Online (3), February 2005 Page 9 © 2005 Illinois State University Physics Dept.becomes theory. See sidebar story 5 for an example of purehypothetical inquiry. As a teaching practice,Consequently, problem-based learning (PBL) is a commonlyemployed pedagogical practice in science classrooms. As a formof hypothetical inquiry, PBL places all students in activ
7 e roles asreal-world problem solvers. St
e roles asreal-world problem solvers. Students must build a case for amust argue logically in support of their hypothesis. The problemsclear answers, and are based upon compelling problems. Thisof applied hypothetical inquiry.Complete Hierarchy of Pedagogical Practices Table 4types and types of hypothetical inquiry. The continuum is nowaddress these more fully, it is important to describe a hierarchyHierarchy of Inquiry Processes As has been stated, theright along the continuum an inquiry practice is located. Aquestion may now be logically asked, What is the precise naturerequired to complete a specified level of inquiry-oriented activity.and middle/high school education. The National ResearchCouncil (NRC, 2000) in its publication Science Education Standards SIDEBAR STORY 5: Example of Pure Hypotheticalrelation to the current topic, buoyancy, would be to addressthe source of the buoyant force. The student hypothesizesthat buoyancy results from differences in pressure appliedover various surface areas (hence forces), say, on the top andbottom of an imaginary cube. With an understanding thatP = force equals pressure per unit area multiplied by the area underF = PAon horizontal parallel surfaces at two different depths andtaking the difference results in a correct formulation of thebuoyant force. This provides support for the correctness ofA reformulation of the last equation and proper identificationof terms will show why Archimedes principle works the wayAs a result of this form of pure inquiry, the student hasthe buoyant force law, and can explain Archimedes law. TheNow, to make certain that students understand the relationshipfrom a pressure differential on a body account for such thingstheir hypotheses to other real world phenomena. Alternatively, FgVVgmg=== FPAgdAFPAgdAFFFgddAFgVtoptoptopbotbotbotbottopbottop== J. Phys. Tchr. Educ. Online (3), February 2005 Page 10 © 2005 Illinois State University Physics Dept.more advanced process skills are being overlooked. Clearly, ifend-goal of science education (scientific literacy). A hierarchyof inquiry processes can be found in Table 5. The listings areApplication to Teacher Preparation, Instructionalhierarchical distinctions for the construction of scientificknowledge, it should now be clear what the student teachersproblem was in the exa
8 mple cited at the beginning of this arti
mple cited at the beginning of this article.sophistication, teacher-centered inquiry activities basically aappropriate bridging activities. The only prior experiences theof the student teacher were traditional cookbook labs. Theseprocesses. The students, not having learned to walk before theyadvanced nature of the lab imposed upon them. The source ofthe student teachers problem was that inquiry lessons and guidedto developing scientific inquiry. This was due in large part towas also the fault of this teacher candidates educators topedagogical practices and inquiry processes. That deficiency incurriculum at Illinois State University. When working withprocesses is now being made explicit. Teacher candidates arethe gap between teacher-centered activities and student-centered SIDEBAR STORY 6: Example of Applied HypotheticalWhen Lightning Strikes (Roth, 2003). This PBL is based onago. This PBL deals with a scenario wherein a young femaleRoths high school physics class assembles on the bleachersof the schools baseball field. The problem statement is thenSpringfield girls softball team is playing whenthreatening clouds begin to build on the horizon. Theofficials at the game believe they can finish before astorm occurs. As the pitcher winds up, a large lightningbolt strikes the earth in far left field. As the lightningpitch and slumps to the ground, dead. What electricalphenomena are related to and/or caused the youngpitchers death? Each person should write a persuasiveargument that constructs support for their conclusionsindividually. In addition, be sure to include all physicsargument in both your written and oral reports.Subsequent to the initial overview, students are provided withpark managers accident report, coroners report, and radarsummary. After a review of the facts of the case, the studentsare asked to hypothesize as to the cause of the pitchers death Pure HypotheticalInquiry LearningInteractiveDemonstrationInquiryLessonGuidedInquiry LabBoundedInquiry LabFreeInquiry LabAppliedHypothetical Inquiry High Locus of Control Student Table 4. A more complete hierarchy of inquiry-oriented science teaching practices including distinctions between laboratorytypes, and pure and applied inquiry. J. Phys. Tchr. Educ. Online (3), February 2005 Page 11 © 2005 Illinois State Univers
9 ity Physics Dept.paper as part of a seni
ity Physics Dept.paper as part of a senior-level methods course. It is believe thattheir practice by incorporating an understanding of levels ofinquiry, and their students will directly benefit from a moreeffective form of teaching practice. Instructional developmentconsideration for the continuum at any level will in all likelihoodresult in a pedagogy that will be less effective both in theoryof how to effectively teach science as both product The author wishes to thank Mr. Luke Luginbuhl for drawingthe initial distinction between inquiry lesson and inquiry labof the Physics Teacher Education program at Illinois StateUniversity. He now teaches physics at Havana High School inReferences:Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. The Physics Teacher, 36,Herron, M. D. (1971). The nature of scientific enquiry. Review, 79 Rudimentary SkillsBasic SkillsIntegrated SkillsAdvanced Skills Collecting and recordingdataDrawing conclusionsMeasuring metricallyEstimatingIdentifying variablesConstructing a table of databetween variablesAcquiring and processing dataAnalyzing investigationsDefining variables operationallyIdentifying problems toinvestigateDesigning and conductingscientificUsing technology andmath duringinvestigationsGenerating principlesthrough the process ofCommunicating anddefending a scientificSolving complex real-worldproblemsSynthesizing complexhypothetical explanationsEstablishing empirical laws onthe basis of evidence andlogicAnalyzing and evaluatingscientific argumentsConstructing logical proofsthe process of deductionHypothetical inquiry High Table 5. Relative degree of sophistication of various inquiry-oriented intellectual processes. These listings are intended to besuggestive, not definitive. Lawson, A. (1995). Science Teaching and the Development of Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.National Science Education Standards.Research Council. Washington, DC: National ResearchCouncil. Available from http://www .nap.edu/readingroom/ Standards.National Research Council. Washington, DC:National Academy Press. Available http://www .nap.edu/ Ostlund, K. L. (1992). Science Process Skills: Assessing Hands-New York: Addison-WesleyPublishing Company, Inc.Assessing Science Process Skills, Learning Workshop, Illinois State University, Normal, IL:Staver, J. R. & Bay, M. (1987). Analysis of the project synthesisJournal of Research in Science Teach