1. Reflect on Duschl and Grandy's notion of inquiry in relation to your personal experiences both as a student and as a teacher.
To me inquiry means a search for knowledge. It reminds me of those "chose your own adventure" stories. You read the book and at certain points you can make a choice such as "go to the library and turn to page 73 or go to the cafeteria and turn to page 112". A bad choice will lead to an untimely end where other choices can lead to an enriching experience. Each time you read the book, you get a different story but the story is pre-written and the authors know where the choices lead. There is freedom to "inquire" or follow the choices but you must stay within the context of the book. I feel that if an inquiry based approach is used, it should be within certain boundaries and the teacher should have an outcome (standard) and would "stack" the evidence to lead to certain conclusions. I also feel that for an inquiry based approach to work, the students must be committed to the learning experience. They must want to "search for knowledge" or they will not come to any meaningful conclusions. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink.
2. Reflect on any one of the above trends in relation to your classroom teaching and the DataTools investigations that you are implementing (or will be implementing shortly.)
"From a goal of providing science education for scientists, to providing science education for all."
I understand what the authors are saying but I think that maybe they have polarized the topic to fit their assumptions. I think that their recognized trends are very 2 dimensional and have a black or white only spin to them. I think education is usually in the grey area in the middle. I have chosen the first "trend" because I think the others are basically an offshoot of the one listed above. I agree with much they say about the process of learning and how inquiry based techniques are the key BUT I think it not quite accurate to base previous science education as only a "what to learn" situation and not "how to learn" opportunity. The scientific method is (at least in my humble opinion) an inquiry based approach - making observations and drawing conclusions and making connections by building upon those conclusions. It is applicable in many real life situations. I feel that good teaching must find a balance between fact-based knowledge and the ability to investigate and make your own conclusions and connections. My unit on hurricanes is inquiry based but requires a lot of "scientist" like knowledge (basic facts). Making connections between water temperature and hurricane intensity can be taught by the teacher or can be discovered by the student (as in my unit) but is still just a fact and may be considered esoteric knowledge by many. The process is what will live on in their lives.
ps - I have been very sick over the past week and I may come off as a little cynical so sorry if that is the case.
To me inquiry means a search for knowledge. It reminds me of those "chose your own adventure" stories. You read the book and at certain points you can make a choice such as "go to the library and turn to page 73 or go to the cafeteria and turn to page 112". A bad choice will lead to an untimely end where other choices can lead to an enriching experience. Each time you read the book, you get a different story but the story is pre-written and the authors know where the choices lead. There is freedom to "inquire" or follow the choices but you must stay within the context of the book. I feel that if an inquiry based approach is used, it should be within certain boundaries and the teacher should have an outcome (standard) and would "stack" the evidence to lead to certain conclusions. I also feel that for an inquiry based approach to work, the students must be committed to the learning experience. They must want to "search for knowledge" or they will not come to any meaningful conclusions. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink.
2. Reflect on any one of the above trends in relation to your classroom teaching and the DataTools investigations that you are implementing (or will be implementing shortly.)
"From a goal of providing science education for scientists, to providing science education for all."
I understand what the authors are saying but I think that maybe they have polarized the topic to fit their assumptions. I think that their recognized trends are very 2 dimensional and have a black or white only spin to them. I think education is usually in the grey area in the middle. I have chosen the first "trend" because I think the others are basically an offshoot of the one listed above. I agree with much they say about the process of learning and how inquiry based techniques are the key BUT I think it not quite accurate to base previous science education as only a "what to learn" situation and not "how to learn" opportunity. The scientific method is (at least in my humble opinion) an inquiry based approach - making observations and drawing conclusions and making connections by building upon those conclusions. It is applicable in many real life situations. I feel that good teaching must find a balance between fact-based knowledge and the ability to investigate and make your own conclusions and connections. My unit on hurricanes is inquiry based but requires a lot of "scientist" like knowledge (basic facts). Making connections between water temperature and hurricane intensity can be taught by the teacher or can be discovered by the student (as in my unit) but is still just a fact and may be considered esoteric knowledge by many. The process is what will live on in their lives.
ps - I have been very sick over the past week and I may come off as a little cynical so sorry if that is the case.
331:1114