With this paradigm shift, guided inquiry with learning through constructivism would seem to be good fit. Recognizing differences in students’ levels of expertise in a beginning vs. advanced chemistry course, however, demands some analysis of levels of inquiry that are appropriate.
In general, beginning students without prior knowledge of chemistry cannot start with open and unguided inquiry, but this does not mean that the lecture format is the alternative. Instead, two other options work: structured lecture-interactive and guided discovery.
Laura reviewed some key concepts from references on learning:
- the perception-input-filtering-storage-retrieval process of science learning - Johnston, 1998)
- the exploration-concept-invention the science learning cycle (Karplus, 1967; Piaget, 1964)
- key ideas about learning – constructing to understand, exploration-concept formation-application cycle, connecting and visualizing concepts and representations, discussing and interacting with others, and reflecting on progress and assessing performance (Bransford, et al)
- learning levels – information (recall), concept (classifies), simple rules (demonstrates), and higher complex rules or problem solving (generate) – (Gagné & Briggs, 1974)
Next, she considered what level of learning is expected in the introductory vs. the upper level course. The Process Oriented Guided Inquiry (POGIL) model was used for the introductory course and a team-based learning model (Michaelson) was used for the advanced course.
In both models, group work was done in class. In POGIL (cooperative learning) the groups changed, there were 4 or fewer in each group, roles were assigned, process skills were critical, group work might be graded, prompt feedback would occur sometimes, and peer assessment would occur sometimes. In team-based learning, the groups stay the same the whole term, with 5-7 members, no roles are assigned, low-concern for process skills, group work is graded, prompt feedback is provided, and peer assessment is critical.
Results for the introductory course of moving from the lecture-interactive to the inquiry teaching showed a higher distribution of A’s, B’s, and C’s with lower DWFs. For the upper level course, the shift from lecture-interactive to inquiry resulted in lower DFWs (small improvements in grade distribution, but too small to draw conclusions yet).
In the introductory course, analysis of questions grouped by learning level shows more gains (significantly higher) for recall and conceptual learning. In the upper level course, there were no clear differences across types of learning outcomes. In both courses, the average difference in correct responses to common items across exams was persistently higher in the inquiry classes.
Student evaluations of guided inquiry in the introductory course revealed some benefits (socialization, staying on task, and help in problem solving) and some problems (rudeness, feeling of inadequacy, group lack of knowledge or too much socialization, insufficient explanation and guidance).
Student evaluations of inquiry learning in the advanced course gave high marks for the class activities, instructional approach, and course resources.
Presenter: Laura DeLong Frost, Georgia Southern University
In general, beginning students without prior knowledge of chemistry cannot start with open and unguided inquiry, but this does not mean that the lecture format is the alternative. Instead, two other options work: structured lecture-interactive and guided discovery.
Laura reviewed some key concepts from references on learning:
- the perception-input-filtering-storage-retrieval process of science learning - Johnston, 1998)
- the exploration-concept-invention the science learning cycle (Karplus, 1967; Piaget, 1964)
- key ideas about learning – constructing to understand, exploration-concept formation-application cycle, connecting and visualizing concepts and representations, discussing and interacting with others, and reflecting on progress and assessing performance (Bransford, et al)
- learning levels – information (recall), concept (classifies), simple rules (demonstrates), and higher complex rules or problem solving (generate) – (Gagné & Briggs, 1974)
Next, she considered what level of learning is expected in the introductory vs. the upper level course. The Process Oriented Guided Inquiry (POGIL) model was used for the introductory course and a team-based learning model (Michaelson) was used for the advanced course.
In both models, group work was done in class. In POGIL (cooperative learning) the groups changed, there were 4 or fewer in each group, roles were assigned, process skills were critical, group work might be graded, prompt feedback would occur sometimes, and peer assessment would occur sometimes. In team-based learning, the groups stay the same the whole term, with 5-7 members, no roles are assigned, low-concern for process skills, group work is graded, prompt feedback is provided, and peer assessment is critical.
Results for the introductory course of moving from the lecture-interactive to the inquiry teaching showed a higher distribution of A’s, B’s, and C’s with lower DWFs. For the upper level course, the shift from lecture-interactive to inquiry resulted in lower DFWs (small improvements in grade distribution, but too small to draw conclusions yet).
In the introductory course, analysis of questions grouped by learning level shows more gains (significantly higher) for recall and conceptual learning. In the upper level course, there were no clear differences across types of learning outcomes. In both courses, the average difference in correct responses to common items across exams was persistently higher in the inquiry classes.
Student evaluations of guided inquiry in the introductory course revealed some benefits (socialization, staying on task, and help in problem solving) and some problems (rudeness, feeling of inadequacy, group lack of knowledge or too much socialization, insufficient explanation and guidance).
Student evaluations of inquiry learning in the advanced course gave high marks for the class activities, instructional approach, and course resources.
Presenter: Laura DeLong Frost, Georgia Southern University
No comments:
Post a Comment