tdsb inquiry-based activity development: proposal

5/26/2018 TDSB Inquiry-Based Activity Development: Proposal

1/17

Inquiry-based

Activity Development

ProcessProposal for Toronto District School Board

Developed by a senior engineering team for the multidisciplinary capstone engineering course

at the University of Toronto:

4/28/2014

Lobna El Gammal

Nikita Dawe

Maguy Jbeili


2/17

Document Overview

The Inquiry-based Activity Development (IAD) design was developed by a team of three senior

engineering students as a part of their Multidisciplinary Capstone (MCP) design project. The design is

intended to guide high school science teachers in developing inquiry-based activities for classroom use.

This document outlines: the need for the IAD, its theoretical underpinnings, and its functionality and

implementation.


3/17

Client Need

Toronto District School Board (TDSB) representatives approached an MCP team at the University of

Toronto (UofT) in October of 2013. TDSBs original request was toredesign high school science

laboratory teaching materials, with an emphasis on inquiry and/or innovation in teaching and learning.

Problem Definition

The MCP team engaged with TDSB stakeholders and reviewed inquiry research and literature to define

TDSBs need as an engineering design problem. It became clear that instructors lacked a systemic

method of inquiry activity development and implementation (Gleeson, Lebourveau, Meyer, Blake, &

Paterson, 2013). In fact, each stakeholder and literature source expressed a different perception of

inquiry. Stakeholder interactions allowed the MCP team to narrow and specify the client need. TDSB

teachers would benefit greatly from a formalized approach to inquiry activity development; a process

that teachers can use and reuse to develop inquiry activity plans. The MCP team developed three

higher-level objectives for the design development. Specifically, the designed process should:

apply to multiple curriculum areas teach and facilitate student inquiry foster student engagement


4/17

Theoretical Underpinnings

The MCP team integrated aspects of literature and the Ontario Science Curriculum to form a theoretical

framework upon which the design is based and defended.

Literature

In line with the three higher-level objectives generated from stakeholder interactions, the literature

researched during design development centered about: inquiry, cooperative learning, and active

learning. The IADs theoretical framework is derived from this literature.

Inquiry

Inquiry is an educational technique that the majority of literature and instructors agree is essential to

studentslearning (Nilson, 2010) (Education, 2008) (Gleeson, Lebourveau, Meyer, Blake, & Paterson,

2013). Yet inquiry lacks a singular, agreed upon definition in literature and between instructors.

Furthermore, techniques for implementation are seldom provided along with more abstract definitions.

A number of prominent understandings and definitions of inquiry have influenced design's literature-

based foundation. Hudspith and Jenkins define inquiry learning as a self-directed, question-driven

search for understanding (Hudspith & Jenkins, 2001). They explained this search as a process that

involves students focusing on a specific area of interest, formulating a research question, developing a

research strategy, and reaching conclusions based on the results of these strategies (Nilson, 2010). This

provides a general overview of the inquiry process, but does not outline or cover all steps that must be

taken to implement this process in a classroom. Another understanding of inquiry, as presented in

guidebooks for institutions and instructors, simplifies it into two steps: students generate a research

question, and then follow the scientific method to arrive at results and conclusions (Lee, 2004). This

definition proposes a more specific implementation process for inquiry; one that follows the scientific

method. Central to these and other prominent definitions of inquiry is the process of generating and


5/17

answering questions (Nilson, 2010) (Rothstein & Santana, 2011). Teachers at TDSB also relate inquiry

teaching to the development of questions, most of which is student-directed (Gleeson, Lebourveau,

Meyer, Blake, & Paterson, 2013).

Some theories consider inquiry to be independent of question-formation, limited to the process of

working through a provided challenge that may or may not come in the form of a question (Prince &

Felder, 2006) (Prince & Felder, 2007). Prince and Felder view inquiry as an umbrella teaching-learning

approach that encompasses a number of instructional methods such as problem-based learning,

project-based learning, and discovery learning (Prince & Felder, 2007) (Nilson, 2010). In this way, Prince

and Felder conform to the perspective that inquiry is a form of inductive learning. Many definitions of

inquiry learning classify it as learning that originates from concrete factual examples, and moves

towards abstract and conceptual learning (Nilson, 2010) (Prince & Felder, 2007). Inductive teaching is

the opposite of deductive teaching, which begins by introducing general theories and concepts, and

then moves on to provide more specific examples.

In many ways, inquiry learning drives scientific innovation and progress (Firestein, 2013) (Chuy,

Scardamalia, Bereiter, & Prinden, 2010). Inquiry does so by investigating the scientific unknown as

opposed to the known. This implies practicing an inquiry approach centered more about falsification

than about verification (Barseghyan, 2013). Verification is a philosophy of science concept that involves

the search for verifying results and data (Godfrey-Smith, 2003). The scientific and philosophy of science

communities abandoned verification as the basis of scientific progress over 80 years ago (Barseghyan,

2013). It is replaced by the concept of falsifiability as the driver of scientific progress (Lakatos, 1970)

(DeWitt, 2010). Scientific progress is now motivated by the search for evidence and results that

disprove scientific beliefs (Firestein, 2013) (Barseghyan, 2013). If inquiry teaching is to represent the

state of the scientific community, it must be centered about falsification and seek to challenge

verification (Chuy, Scardamalia, Bereiter, & Prinden, 2010).


6/17

In science education, inquiry teaching and learning is considered to be either a means or an end (Abd-el-

Khalick, Boujaoude, Duschil, & Lederman, 2004). In the cases where inquiry is considered a skill, it

serves as a means to learning science and is exhibited through a number of different practices, such as

the scientific method (Hudspith & Jenkins, 2001). In the cases where inquiry is considered a trait,

science education focuses on learning about inquiry. Rarely is inquiry addressed in science education as

both a means and an end simultaneously (Nilson, 2010).

Inquiry is classified into categories: demonstrated, structured, closed, and open. Mr. Christopher

Howes, science/technology facilitator at the Durham District School Board, succinctly identifies the

differences between the four types of inquiry as presented inFigure 1 (Howes, 2012):

The nature of inquiry as a teaching method makes it an effective learning method (Nilson, 2010)

(Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999). This is because it requires higher-order thinking: the acquisition

and comprehension of knowledge, data analysis, the evaluation of evidence, and the application of

findings (Nilson, 2010). Research has also shown that inquiry-based teaching is more engaging for

Figure 1: Types of Inquiry as presented by Christopher Howes (Howes, 2012)


7/17

students than traditional lecture-based teaching methods (Oliver-Hoyo & Allen, 2005) (Maria, Allen, &

Anderson, 2004). This is primarily because it draws on students interests and motivations.

Inquiry has been prominent in recent calls to reform science education at the secondary education level

(Anderson, 2002) (Rothstein & Santana, 2011) (Fisher, 2000) (Gleeson, Lebourveau, Meyer, Blake, &

Paterson, 2013). The Ontario Science Curriculum documents identify inquiry as a core skill that must be

developed in eleventh and twelfth grade science classes (Education, 2008). Inquiry is presented as a

flowchart of four stages, as replicated inFigure 2,without further implementation guidelines (Gleeson,

Lebourveau, Meyer, Blake, & Paterson, 2013).

Cooperative Learning

Cooperative learning, more commonly referred to as group work, is practiced often in science

classrooms (Gleeson, Lebourveau, Meyer, Blake, & Paterson, 2013) (Nilson, 2010). Cooperative learning

defined as a teaching method in which students work in pairs or groups to complete common tasks or

achieve common goals (Cooper, Robinson, & McKinney, 1993). The benefits of cooperative learning

have been assessed in over six hundred studies since the 1990s (Nilson, 2010). Specifically, research has

consistently found that cooperative learning experiences: create greater student achievement and

productivity, develop positive interpersonal relationships, and motivate students (Johnson & D.W.,

1994) (Johnson, T., & K.A., 1991) (Nilson, 2010). Specifically, research has indicated that optimal group

sizes are composed of between two and four students. Cooperative learning has proven especially

Figure 2: Inquiry as presented in the Ontario Science Curriculum (Education, 2008)


8/17

effective in science and engineering disciplines (Felder & Brent, Cooperative Learning in Technical

Courses , 1994).

Active Learning

Inquiry teaching is effective when incorporated into active learning experiences (Nilson, 2010). Active

learning engages students in the material they are studying, for example through: writing, reading,

discussing, experimenting, or performing project-work (Minnesota, 2008). Research on the benefits of

active learning has found that student motivation increases in active learning environments, because

students have a role to play in their learning (Nilson, 2010) (Felder & Brent, Active Leanring: an

introduction , 2009) (Johnson, T., & K.A., 1991).

Theoretical Framework

The IAD design builds on research and literature to identify inquiry as:

inductive learning

questioning approaches and findings

challenging verification

driving scientific progress and innovationThe IAD borrows its conceptual framework of inquiry teaching stages from the Ontario Science

Curriculum, which presents inquiry as a flowchart of four stages: awareness, emergence, refinement,

and extension.

The implementation process at the core of the IAD incorporates cooperative learning techniques, active

learning methods, and inquiry learning methods that draw from a range of inquiry literature and

research.


9/17

Inquiry-based Activity Development Process

The IAD design is a planning process for teachers. The outputs of this process are lesson plans that are

then implemented in the classroom to create inquiry-based activities for students to engage in. Figure 3

contextualizes this design, indicated in blue.

This design takes the Ontario Science Curriculum's definition of inquiry as four distinct stages. These

stages are expanded into specific actions and formalized based on evidence from literature and theory.

The resulting classroom inquiry activity is presented inFigure 4.

Figure 3: Overview of the IAD Design


10/1

Design Components

The design is made up of three components, each provided in electronic and paper forms. Each

component targets a single stakeholder group. The three components, also presented graphically in

Figure 5,are:

1. Planning Resource2. Implementation Resource3. Design Rationale

Figure 4: In-class implementation


11/1

Planning Resource

The planning resource is intended for use by high school teachers. It prompts the user to create an

inquiry activity plan. Each activity plan is tailored to suit specific teacher and classroom needs.

The resource provides a worked example of an activity plan for a grade 11 physics unit inquiry activity

on the right-hand side. On the left-hand side is an empty template with the same format as the worked

example. The template prompts teachers to consider and make decisions required for each stage of the

inquiry process such as: determining learning expectations, preparing materials for student use,

developing worksheets and prompting questions, and choosing methods of summative assessment. The

planning resource also guides teachers in organizing the timeline of the activity and determining

evaluation methods when necessary. Finally, the resource provides teachers with guiding questions and

Figure 5: Components of IAD Design


12/1

prompts that lead students through the four stages of inquiry. These can be used either as discussion

points or worksheets. In this way, teachers create tailored and specific activity plans.

This planning resource is intended to be short and clear, so that teachers find it appealing and easy to

use multiple times. Interactions with stakeholders indicate that teachers do not desire long documents

composed mostly of literature and theory. For this reason, this document does not include the evidence

upon which the design is developed.

Implementation Resource

The Implementation Resource is a brochure that familiarizes users with how the activity plan developed

using the Planning Resource is implemented in the classroom. It is intended to be read by teachers to

motivate and persuade them to use the IAD design's Planning Resource

On one side, the resource outlines the four stages of inquiry and the steps teachers and students take in

the classroom to achieve each stage. This is presented as a flowchart that includescheck-in pointsat

which teachers can confirm that students are on track, and evaluation pointsthat offer opportunities for

assessment. On the other side, a brief overview of the inquiry literature is provided. Specifically, the

brochure addresses the importance of inquiry, inquiry as defined in the IAD design, and what makes this

design unique.

Design Rationale

The Design Rationale is intended to be received by policy- and curriculum- level officials once the design

is considered for implementation. It outlines the evidence motivating each design feature and provides a

detailed description of the theoretical underpinnings of the design. For interested teachers, the Design

Rationale also provides troubleshooting information and options for activity variation in the form of

annotated versions of the Planning Resource and Implementation Resource.


13/1

Design Credibility

The IAD design is unique from other resources made available to teachers. The design has also been

prototyped by a high school teacher. This prototyping process resulted in a number of changes. Further

prototyping is forthcoming.

Unique Design Features

The IAD design is unique in that it:

is tailored to Ontarios curriculum: the four phases of inquiry identified emerge from OntarioMinistry of Educations definition of inquiry. The IAD provides frameworks and implementation

methods to be used in the classroom

emphasizes inquiry as a means and an end: this process uses inquiry as both a means and anend. When the activity plan developed by teachers is implemented in a classroom, it assures

that inquiry is achieved through the four stages. The final stage of refinement allows for a

discussion to emerge around the importance of inquiry and of questioning science and scientific

methodologies.

presents inquiry as holistic: the IAD design draws on a number of existing theories of inquiry. Bydoing so, inquiry as practiced through this process is holistic, addressing a number of important

inquiry concepts such as: inductive learning, the questioning of science, challenging scientific

verification, and scientific progress and innovation

provides unique implementation resources: this design provides a number of resources, eachtailored to suit certain stakeholder groups. Unique to other supplementary teaching material,

this design provides teachers with simple, clear, and easy to implement resources. A more in-

depth research-based description of the design and its features is provided in the Design

Rationale document, upon request


14/1

Prototyping and Improvements

The IAD design has been prototyped, used to develop an activity plan and implemented in a classroom,

by a grade 11 Physics teacher. The feedback that was provided from this prototype iteration led to

significant changes in the teacher resource, namely the simple two-column structure. The

implementation resource was also developed based on feedback from a number of science teachers

(Gleeson, Lebourveau, Meyer, Blake, & Paterson, 2013). The design will be prototyped in future

iterations, and with different teachers. The IAD design is intended for teachers, which makes teachers

input necessary and crucial. The IAD design is unique from other designs in that it has been tested and

used by teachers, and enhanced based on feedback from these uses.


15/1

Works Cited

Abd-el-Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschil, R., & Lederman, N. (2004). Inquiry in Science Education:

International Perspectives. Culture and Comparative Studies .

Anderson, R. (2002). Reforming Science Teaching: What research says about inquiry.Journal of Science

Teacher Education .

Barseghyan, H. (2013). Introduction to the Philosophy of Science .University of Toronto , Toronto ,

Ontario, Canada.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How People Learn: Brain, mind, experience, and

school .Washington DC: National Academy Press .

Chuy, M., Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Prinden, F. (2010). Understanding the neature of science and

scientific progress: A theory-building approach.Canadian Journal of Learning and Teaching .

Cooper, J., Robinson, P., & McKinney, M. (1993). Cooperative learning in the classroom . In D. Halpern,

Changing College Clasrooms (pp. 74-92). Francisco: Jossey-Bass .

DeWitt, R. (2010). Falsifiability. In R. DeWitt, Worldviews: An Introduction to the History and Philosophy

of Science (pp. 65-71). West Sussex : Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Education, O. M. (2008). The Ontario Curriculum; Science Grades 11 and 12.Ontario: Queens Printer .

Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (1994). Cooperative Learning in Technical Courses .Washington DC : National

Science Foundation .

Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2009).Active Leanring: an introduction .ASQ Higher Education Brief .

Firestein, S. (2013). The Pursuit of Ignorance.TED Conference, Edinburgh, Scotland.


16/1

Fisher, S. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Science Scope , 68.

Gleeson, M., Lebourveau, S., Meyer, C., Blake, L., & Paterson, A. (2013, December ). Stakeholder

Interaction Meetings . (L. El Gammal, N. Dawe, & M. Jbeili, Interviewers)

Godfrey-Smith, P. (2003). Theory and Reality.University of Chicago Press .

Howes, C. (2012). Differentiated Science Inquiry. Durham, Ontario, Canada.

Hudspith, B., & Jenkins, H. (2001). Green guide: No. 3. Teaching the Art of Inquiry .Ontario, Canada :

Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education .

Johnson, D. W., T., J. R., & K.A., S. (1991).Active Learning: Cooperation in the college classroom .Edina:

Interaction Books .

Johnson, R. T., & D.W., J. (1994). An overview of cooperative learning . In J. Thousand, V. A., & A. Nevin,

Creativity and Cooperative Learning (pp. 31-44). Baltimore : Brookes Press .

Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes:. In I. Lakatos, &

A. Musgrave, Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (pp. 91-196). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press .

Lee, V. S. (2004). What is Inquiry-guided Learning? A guidebook for institutions and instructors .Sterling,

VA: Stylus .

Maria, O.-H., Allen, D., & Anderson, M. (2004). Inquiry-guided Instruction.Journal of College Science

Teaching, 20-24.

Minnesota, U. o. (2008, May 8th ). What is Active Learning? Minneapolis, Minnesota , United States of

America .

Nilson, L. B. (2010). Teaching At Its Best .San Francisco, California : Jossey-Bass.


17/1

Oliver-Hoyo, M. T., & Allen, D. (2005). Attitudinal effects of a student-centred active learning

environment.Journal of Chemical Education, 944-949.

Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons,

and research bases .Journal of Engineering Education , 123-138.

Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2007). The many faces of inductive teaching and learning.Journal of

College Science Teaching , 14-20.

Rothstein, D., & Santana, L. (2011). Make Just One Change: Teach students to ask their own questions.

Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.

tdsb inquiry-based activity development: proposal

Documents

inquiry learning

student inquiry

definitions of inquiry

inquiry activity plans

design development

reviewed inquiry research

inquiry andor innovation

literature source