LLED 469 - Inquiry Learning by Design and Essential Questions
Module 7 starts with
comparing traditional research and inquiry and lists the reasons inquiry-based
learning is superior to traditional research models. Traditional research is
seen as teacher-centered, linear, and shallow, whereas inquiry is
student-centered, active, and participatory. While I can understand the
intellectual argument for inquiry-based learning, I find that I have an
emotional reaction to this viewpoint. I was taught in the traditional way and
was a successful student, so perhaps I am feeling defensive because the module
implies that my education was shallow.
I think it’s useful to
notice this initial reaction and realize that others may feel defensive about
the way they teach. Being aware that my colleagues may feel unsure about IBL
will help me plan for Pro-D teaching opportunities. If I know some staff
members are already familiar with inquiry and are perhaps taking part in their
own professional inquiry, I might choose to work in a small group with them
before bringing ideas to the whole staff as suggested in Fontichiaro’s “Nudging
toward inquiry – Building inquiry understanding with colleagues”. I liked her
suggestions of activities such as “Inquiry looks like this, but not like this”
and analyzing an anonymous unit plan to transform it into inquiry.
Wiggins and McTighe
outline an education planning approach in Understanding by Design. I like how
it works backwards and looks at the outcomes you want to see and starts from
there. By thinking about assessment in step two, you ensure the assessment is
authentic and not just an afterthought.
Transforming a school
culture to one that supports inquiry-based learning seems to go hand in hand
with transforming a library to a library learning commons. A learning commons
offers many features that work well with inquiry-based learning. It has modular
furniture that can be moved into different configurations for individual and
collaborative work. It has access to the internet and the wide variety of
digital resources that can be found online. It also has quiet spaces necessary
for reflection.
I found the discussion
of Makerspaces exciting and can see how the variety of materials in a
Makerspace would lead to inquiry. In the school where I teach one day a week,
we have some elements of a Makerspace in our library, but there is much more we
could do. We have a computer lab with thirty desktop computers as well as a set
of about thirty iPads. Next year, one teacher plans to teach coding. We have a
loft above the library stocked with multiple types of yarn and a knitting club
meets there occasionally. I’d like to purchase some supplies so we could
explore areas mentioned in Fontichiaro’s “Nudging toward inquiry – Makerspaces:
Inquiry and CCSS” such as sewing with eTextiles, electronic circuits, and
coding. However, before rushing out to buy robots, I will be making a plan for
what I want the Makerspace to accomplish. I found another article by Fontichiaro
entitled “Sustaining a Makerspace” that advises that teacher librarians have a
purpose for their Makerspace. She also drew on her experience running
Makerspaces to suggest using reusable materials that are flexible. Another
useful recommendation was to ask for donations of time, money, and supplies to
outfit your Makerspace .I am personally involved in the Vancouver Maker
Community as a founding member of the Vancouver Modern Quilt Guild and I have
participated in the Vancouver Mini Maker Faire since its inception in 2011. I
would certainly be happy to bring in a sewing machine and some of my scrap
fabric to let students build their sewing skills.
I can see how my
inquiry into inquiry will have a recursive nature as I move from an initial introduction
to IBL concepts to further experiences with inquiry. For example, the readings
in module eight gave me an understanding of essential questions, but I’m sure
that will be deepened when I develop essential questions for my inquiry unit.
The recursive nature of inquiry is mentioned in the Points of Inquiry
framework.
The importance of
learning how to ask good questions was clearly shown in the readings in this
module. Unfortunately, many students have had their innate curiosity quashed in
traditional classrooms, so they need to re-learn the skill of asking questions.
Fontichiaro had a suggestion of teaching primary students how to ask open-ended
questions by giving them coloured tongue depressors so they could show whether
they thought a question was a red light question (closed) or a green light
question (open). I could see myself trying this as I find that students need
scaffolding in order to ask essential questions. Rothstein and Santana also
believe that students can successfully ask excellent questions when given
practice. In “Teaching Students to Ask Their Own Questions” they give a
framework for question formulation. I am familiar with the brainstorming step
with no judgement and feel that the next steps of improving questions,
prioritizing the best ones, researching, and finally reflecting are a useful
methodology. I look forward to giving this a try in the classroom and seeing
how the students enjoy the process.
I enjoyed Fontichiaro’s
two articles on using picture books to unlock prior knowledge and spur
questions. I believe that picture books can be powerful hooks no matter the age
of the students and I would like to see more teachers using them past the
primary years. I particularly liked how the sticky note model allowed for a
misconceptions section and allowed for modelling of how to switch an idea from
one category to another when new ideas are learned.
Article that wasn’t
part of our readings:
Fontichiaro,
K. (2016). Sustaining a makerspace. Teacher Librarian, 43(4), 39-41. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/
This week, I added the
words in purple to my mind map of Inquiry-Based Learning terms and ideas. Words
in black are from week one.
Comments
Post a Comment