Guided Inquiry in an Upper Level vs. Lower Level Undergraduate Course

This session began with a review of the shift from “teaching is telling” to “teaching is enabling,” from “knowledge is facts” to “knowledge is understanding,” and from “learning is recall” to “learning is an active reconstruction of subject matter.”

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

The Power of Course Design

Goodson and Ahn reviewed the threads of design elements that make a variety of support technologies effective for learning, including instructional television, audio, computer applications, and particularly online learning. Russell after a review of over 355 studies about online vs. classroom, concluded that the power was in the design. Recent research suggests the same (Zhao, Let, Yan, & Tan, 2005) where advantages of online seemed due to differences in design, not in technology. Fink's recent work (2007) also shows the power of design in several studies that produced improved learning through a design process that aligns goals with activities and assessments and feedback for "significant learning" outcomes.



In this session, the case study of the design of an aesthetics course was analyzed to show the progression of decisions and the evolving architecture for the course content, the learning activities (including quizzes), and the assessments. The first stage was the question of what constitutes significant learning? The former course design focused on fashion for body types in restrictive stereotypes; the new course design focused on authentic design processes that lead to fashion design (not just choosing fashion), beginning with sources of inspiration and leading to analysis of fashion elements such as line, balance, rhythm, complexity, and color. In this process of deciding on "significant learning," the human dimension was deepened, and a sense of caring was embedded in the images and language structure of the course.

Shifting to meaningful "significant learning" was beginning with the "why" of what we teach. This then triggered decisions about the course goals, leading to the major modules in the course. Quizzes, discussions, and assessments were designed to match each other and required responses from students that often did not have a "yes" or "no" or distinctively correct answer, but required the application of knowledge and principles.

Feedback was staged to allow students to take the quizzes with automated feedback, in the form of correct answers for multiple choice questions, and in the form of "Did you cover...? If not, you may need to..." for more "open" questions.

Discussion questions asked for examples of concepts and reasoning; the process was to allow discussion without response from the instructor until near the end of the week, who would then summarize the main ideas from the discussion. The instructor also would intervene if a concept was not being addressed correctly so that students would not go down a dead end.

In this session, the group reviewed several module structures to follow the design and architecture of the "information and question pages" and they listed and viewed a Camtasia component of instruction, noting the explicit character of the steps and the use of audio to give directions.

Goodson and Ahn returned to the simplicity of the concepts of design, and the power they possess in transforming the learning - first, determining what is significant learning, then aligning all components of the course with this decision.

Results in this case study as compared with the older edition of the course included: significant learning and insights expressed by students in discussions about "the aesthetics of fashion design" rather than "body type," a "world of fashion" rather than restricted stereotypes or parochial fashions, authentic images inclusive of multiple cultures and both male and female gender rather than females only, a larger distribution of higher grades, and no failures.

Presenters: Ludwika A. Goodson, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, InSook Ahn, Georgia Southern University