This is an image of the overview of the lesson that I included as a sample in my MCEP application.
While it does incorporate the
current higher-order thinking protocol of Webb's Depth of Knowledge, it uses little else
in the way of effective pedagogical practice. As can be
seen in the original document, this lesson was a complete failure, and
with good reason. It did not provide
scaffolding for the students
who needed assistance, and did not provide an interesting hook for the
students who were not engaged. As a result, the
students did not adequately learn the material, and what they did
learn, they did not retain for any amount of time. This is
evidenced by the fact that the average score for the unit exam for this
unit (Earth’s Interior, Plate Tectonics, Earthquakes and Volcanoes) was
below the required percentage for passing of 65%.
Artifact #1: POGIL from Thesis Teaching Unit (whole teaching unit available in PDF here)
In Dr. Roberts's Organic Chemistry classes we were introduced to the POGIL (Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning). Much of our learning in those classes was conducted through completing POGILs. I found this was a highly effective teaching tool (it worked on me), so I did further research into POGILs, and joined POGIL.org, the organization started by the creators of the POGIL to help develop and share POGIL resources and research. This is one example of a POGIL I developed as a result of my research and reading into the development and use of POGILs. It is a POGIL that I developed for my Thesis Teaching Unit on Gas Laws. This is an image of the first page of the POGIL included in the teaching unit. It is adapted from one developed by the progenitors of the POGIL, Richard Moog and John Farrell.
This POGIL is not 100% original, because I feel that there is still much for me to learn about how to develop an effective POGIL. I have been attending workshops to learn more, and plan to continue to attend workshops. This particular POGIL follows the typical POGIL pattern of presenting a set of information in a scaffolded format, asking lower-level questions about the information, and then moving into higher-level questions, requiring the students to synthesize and analyze their answers to the previous questions. This provides an appropriate level of scaffolding, which helps the students increase the complexity of their understanding of a concept, gradually. This helps in overall understanding, as well as retention. In addition, it a
One of the first of the many articles that I read on the subject was written by two of the progenitors of the POGIL movement, Richard Moog and John Farrell: Farrell, J., & Moog, R. (1999). A guided inquiry general chemistry course. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 570.
In this article, Moog and Farrell outline the POGIL process that they developed for their own classes at Franklin and Marshall. In addition to their findings, Moog and Farrell describe the method of using the POGIL and the aspects of a POGIL worksheet. In particular, I found the description of the POGIL worksheet helpful. A POGIL worksheet is split into three parts, 1) Model/Data and/or Information, 2) Critical Thinking Questions, and 3) Applications. This models the progression of levels of cognition presented by Webb's Depth of Knowledge (Webb, 2002) of Recall, Strategic Thinking, and Extended Thinking. The worksheet starts with basic information (the Model/Data/Information) and asks questions that are Recall questions to get the students comfortable with the basic information. The worksheet then continues to the Critical Thinking Questions, which requires the students to use the information to do strategic thinking, giving answers to questions that are cannot be answered by just picking out a piece of information from the original set. Finally, the worksheet continues to Applications, for which the student must use Extended Thinking, and apply the answers they got in the CTQ portion to other different, but related, issues. What stuck with me about this description of the POGIL worksheet is how it had built-in scaffolding to help the students achieve gradually higher-order levels of thinking in a clearly related way. The students could look at the work, from start to finish, and see the relation between the levels, as well as use the previously-gained information as the scaffold to help guide their thinking for the subsequent levels.
One of the articles that I read that did the best job of discussing scaffolding was one that was written primarily to look at computer-aided instructional scaffolding, and did not directly discuss POGILs (focusing instead on PBL, problem-based learning), but its discussion of scaffolding helped me to understand how the POGIL structure would make it an effective scaffolding tool: Simons, K., & Klein, J. (2006). The Impact of Scaffolding and Student Achievement Levels in a Problem-based Learning Environment. Instructional Science, 35, 41-72.
The article outlines the difference between soft scaffolding (the teacher providing feedback on progress and "questioning students on understanding (Simons & Klein, 2006)"), and hard scaffolding (giving "conceptual and strategic support"), which is what the POGIL incorporates into its structure. One of the things that really stuck with me was at a point where they quote another expert on scaffolding. "[S]caffolds should . . . [include] constraining efforts, focusing attention on relevant features to increase the likelihood of the learner's effective action" (Pea, 2004 quoted in Simons & Klein, 2006). This is exactly what POGILs do. As a result, a student is better able to graduate from one level of understanding and thinking to another, without extraneous and immaterial information getting in the way.
An article that I read that helped to clarify the connection between process-oriented approaches and scaffolding was the following: Hmelo-Silver, C. E.; Duncan, R. G.; Chinn, C. A. (2007) Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006); Educational Psychologist; vol 1, 273-299.
This article was a response to another article's criticism of PBL and Inquiry Learning (IL, such as the POGIL) that there is a lack of scaffolding in these teaching techniques. I remember that when we first started in Dr. Roberts's class, there were some that were uncomfortable with the lack of lectures, and initially felt unguided in the learning process. However, as time progressed, and they saw how deeply they began to understand the individual concepts that we learned about, they recognized the scaffolding inherent in the POGIL process. I believe one of the primary benefits of POGIL scaffolding is how the structure helps limit cognitive load, or the amount of information, both in breadth and variety, that a person needs to deal with at any given time. If the cognitive load is too large, the less likely it is that a student will successfully assimilate the knowledge. They state, "Scaffolding can also guide instruction and decrease cognitive load by structuring a task in ways that allow the learner to focus on aspects of the task that are relevant to the learning goals" (Hmelo-Silver, Duncan & Chinn, 2007). This is exactly what the POGIL does. It limits the focus to make it more likely that the student will achieve the learning goal.
Before MCEP, I had never even heard of a POGIL. I would not have known where to begin to incorporate it into my classroom. Now, not only do I know how they are used, and their value, I am in the process of learning how to create them myself. In particular, while many people focus on the importance of the "Inquiry" portion of the POGIL acronym, I found the "Guided" portion of the acronym to be as, if not even more, important. While I always understood the importance of scaffolding, I only knew how to develop lessons in reference to English classes, primarily in terms of writing essays in response to reading literature. Partly due to the fact that I was initially uncomfortable with the science content, and partly due to the fact that I was unfamiliar with the students' cognitive challenges with achieving understanding of science concepts, I did not design lessons that provided scaffolding, as seen in my Baseline Evidence. Since many students are intimidated by the idea of acquiring scientific understanding and knowledge, it is crucial to provide a framework that will help students to become more comfortable with the leraning process. While the activity in my Baseline Evidence does incorporate a gradual increase in orders of thinking, it does not provide a framework for the students to successful navigate from one level to the other, as is required in a scaffolded technique, such as the POGIL.
As a result, as I stated previously, the students did not adequately learn the material, even though it was largely just memorization of facts. Due to my reading and research in the area of POGILs, I am able to employ the scaffolding technique in POGILs. I have a tool for introducing a concept, and then guiding the students to each subsequently higher level of complexity and understanding of a given concept. Since I do not have a corollary for GPS, as I switched to chemistry, and ultimately environmental science, I cannot say whether those students would have improved through my use of the POGIL. However, I can say that the average quiz grade for my environmental science classes was in the C+ range, which is considerably higher than it was for my GPS class exams. In addition, I learned while conducting cogenerative dialogues with my students (discussed in Rubric Item: Reflective Practice) that a high percentage of the students, while initially resistant, ultimately appreciated the scaffolding inherent in the POGIL approach.
Artifact #2: Inorganic Lab - Case Study Format (full lesson plan available in PDF here)
In MCEP we learned about the importance of inquiry-based lessons. We were also introduced to the technique of teaching concepts through the use of case studies, which is a type of inquiry-based lesson that poses a question that must be solved/answered, and for which the students must complete research to determine the solution/answer. The group Lab Lesson that I and my group members developed for Inorganic Chemistry follows this case study format. This is an image of the first page of the student lab manual, which describes the case study for which the students will be researching to find an answer.
This case study requires the students to do literature research and lab research, and to write a response to synthesize the information they learn, and to use the data they collected to formulate an answer. They are required to look at the materials through the lenses of several different concepts, of which the least challenging are solubility and reactivity. It is designed to be engaging, in that the students have a problem to solve, and challenging, in that the material involves a large amount of higher-order thinking, as well as advanced concepts. Previous to MCEP, I did not have the confidence in my content knowledge to even allow my students to conduct experiments.
Since we were introduced to the concept of using case studies when we had Professor Dewprashad as a guest insructor, when I wanted to read more about using case studies to improve student engagement, I turned to one of his articles: Dewprashad, B., Kosky, C., Vaz, G., & Martin, C. (2004). Using Clinical Cases To Teach General Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(10), 1471-1472.
While the article did not go in depth into the benefits of using case studies for student engagement, and instead focused on presenting a specific case study, it did discuss an anonymous survey that he and his co-researcher conducted that indicated that the students had a much better understanding of the connection between a better understanding of chemistry concepts, and the ability to solve a medical (in other words, real world) problem. This was enough to convince me that this was a worthwhile approach to learn more about. Following are a few of the many articles that I read on the subject of using case studies, which is a type of Problem-Based Learning.
These articles-- Chin, C., & Li-Gek, C. (2008). Problem-Based Learning Tools. Science Teacher, 75(8), 44-49. and Cornely, K. (1998). Use of Case Studies in an Undergraduate Biochemistry Course. Journal of Chemistry Education, 75(4) 475-478.-- as well as many others, did a good job of presenting some of the pedagogical challenges of using PBL, the biggest probably being the shaping of the central problem/question. In some cases, the problem was too broad, which led students too far off the path of inquiry that the teacher was hoping to stress. In other cases, the problem was too narrow, which limited the interest of the students. From the reading, I learned that it is important to shape a central question/problem that will have several areas of interest to the students, but which has enough information perimeters that they orbit around the main concepts that I would like to have as their foci. In addition, I decided that using case studies woul be a great way to improve student engagement, since the conclusion of all the articles is that, despite the potential challenges, the increase in student engagement is so great that it is a worthwhile approach for the science classroom. In addition all of the articles stated that this type of approach encourages students to become active learners who ask questions, and become involved researchers.
This is the first lesson I developed which requires the students to complete research to solve a problem. Before, I had only had students completing research to complete research. This is much more effective and draws the students into the topic at hand. This is also a much more effective way of getting students to use higher-order questioning. While the Webb's Depth of Knowledge that I used in the application lesson requires higher-order questioning, it was unsuccessful, because it did not provide a framework for the students to understand the concepts. Using a case study, like this lab activity, gives the students a real-life framework that they can use to connect to the information. In addition, student engagement is critical for retention of concepts. In using the case study approach, not only are the students more connected to the information, via the real-life framework, they also are more interested, because there is a real-life problem to solve, rather than an abstract word problem with no applicability to their own lives.
In addition to this case study, I have developed others, including one especially successful one that I conducted with my environmental science class, as a culmination to the energy unit. For that one I had the students complete a case study in which the activity groups were electric companies with a research and development budget. The groups had to develop a business report that established a direction for energy use in the coming decade, and that discussed the feasibility, merits, and problems related to two favored energy sources, and two rejected energy sources. As evidence of the power of the case study to improve student engagement, this was the first activity that I assigned with 100% participation through to the end of the project. During the cogenerative dialogues that I conducted after the end of the case study activity, all of the students expressed that they felt it was a more interesting way of learning about the pros and cons of different energy sources than a dry lecture or "read and answer the question" style of assignment.