Frank Savino

Action Research on Signature Pedagogy Based on

Observation at Bronx High School of Science

Fall 2017

Education 378
 2

Abstract

Education is a field that is extremely important, which is why people are always

trying to improve and refine it. As a result, techniques and pedagogies change

frequently in an attempt to keep up with the evolving profession. One of the more recent

trends in education is the practice of teaching through inquiry. Inquiry based lessons

involve, the creation of a classroom where students are engaged in essentially open-

ended, student centered, hands-on activities. There are four more specific types of

inquiry, but for the purposes of this paper, we will focus on structured inquiry defined

to be when, The teacher provides students with a hands-on problem to investigate, as

well as the procedures, and materials, but does not inform them of expected outcomes,

(Colburn, 42).

During my time observing at Bronx High School of Science, I noticed that a lot of

the lessons I saw fit under the category of structured inquiry. Students were often given

problems to solve, after the teacher had gone over the procedures to do so. This kept

the students engaged and forced them to think, without creating an environment where

students became so frustrated with solving problems that they became discouraged and

gave up. Through a combination of my observations and research, I tried to incorporate

structured inquiry into the lesson plan I developed on the introduction to imaginary

numbers.
 3

Introduction

Over the course of my math career, I have had many teachers who have been

incredibly helpful, and who have helped shape the type of teacher I want to be.

Unfortunately, as with many other students, I have had teachers who have not been as

helpful. While these teachers may have made learning more difficult, they also have

impacted how I want to teach, and how my pedagogy has been formed.

The best teachers Ive had have been able to balance lecturing, notes, and

examples in such a way that makes the material make sense. The most important part

of the lesson plans of these teachers, have been the examples that they give and the

way in which they deliver them to the class. The teaching style in which these example

questions are posed are known as teaching through inquiry. Inquiry lessons have many

aspects to them, but the most important aspect is that the students be involved and are

able to work through problems on their own. When students take on a more involved

role in the classroom, they naturally put forth more effort, which in turn leads higher

levels of success (Schmid, Bogner, 1).

There are four types of inquiry, (confirmation, guided, open, and structured),

however during my time observing mathematics at Bronx High School of Science, I

noticed that a lot of the lessons used the structured style of inquiry. This style involves

the students finding the outcome after they are given a question and method. Students

should be given time to struggle through their solutions, as well as their use of the

specified method. I believe that this method is highly effective for mathematics classes

because it allows for the teacher to get through the material in the Common Core
 4

standards, while at the same time allowing for students to experience an inquiry based

classroom.

Research

The first thing I wanted to research, was what exactly a teacher needs to be able to do

in order to develop an effective structured inquiry lesson. According to An Inquiry

Primer by Alan Colburn, there are a few things that a teacher can focus on when

developing their lessons. The first is to ask open-ended questions, which force students

to think about concepts, and possibly help the teacher to gain insight into what students

already know about the topic. Teachers should also avoid telling students what to do or

how to do it. This allows for students to feel free to move in whatever direction they feel

best. And lastly, in my opinion, the most important thing brought up in this article is for a

teacher to maintain discipline in the classroom. Classroom management is important in

every classroom, but in inquiry lessons may require the students to be a bit more

disciplined so that they do not become distracted or stray from the task at hand

(Colburn, 44).

Next in my quest to learn more about structured inquiry, I researched different

aspects of it, and what others had found on the topic. One of the first research articles I

came across that I found helpful, was by Sarah Schmid and Franz X. Bogner, titled

Effects of Students Effort Scores in a Structured Inquiry Unit on Long-Term Recall

Abilities of Content Knowledge. Schmid and Bogner claim that, learning is the product

of self-organization and reorganization and that learning, requires the active

participation of the learner. In a math setting, this active participation can take on many

forms. It could be as simple as students helping the teacher solve an example problem,
 5

or as complex as students designing and carrying out an experiment that uses the

concepts taught to them (Schmid, Bogner, 1-2).

Some schools, like Bronx High School of Science, may have highly motivated

students who would do quite performing an experiment. While on the other hand, there

may be schools in which students may be less motivated, and thus stray from the task

at hand when carrying out their experiment. People who oppose structured inquiry may

use these schools as examples of why structured inquiry wont work, and why it should

be avoided. To those opponents, I would agree that perhaps conducting an experiment

may not always be an effective use of time, but argue that there are other ways that the

students could be actively engaged. Instead of an experiment, perhaps the students are

given a practice problem to be worked on in small groups. Students here would still be

required to think critically and make use of key ideas and concepts. The good thing

about having such a broad range of options for active participation is that it allows for

effective teaching in a variety of schools settings.

Furthering the idea that structured inquiry is scalable, Heather Banchi and Randy

Bell explain how, most students, regardless of age, need extensive practice to develop

their inquiry abilities, in The Many Levels of Inquiry. Developing inquiry includes critical

thinking, problem solving, and ability to struggle; all of which are important components

to all aspects of life; not just mathematics. Banchi and Randy do a great job in

describing structured inquiry, however they classify it as, lower-level [inquiry], and in

the process attach a negative connotation with it. I believe that although structured

inquiry is not as extravagant as open inquiry, where students, have the purest

opportunities to act like scientists, it still provides many benefits, such as developing
 6

explanations for concepts, and further, is something that could theoretically be used in

every lesson, where as teachers may have a more difficult time incorporating open

inquiry daily (Banchi, Bell, 26-27).

While there are many who support teaching through inquiry, this paper would be

incomplete if it did not address those who criticize and oppose this style of teaching.

One such paper that does so is Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not

Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based,

Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching, and is written by Paul A. Kirschner , John

Sweller & Richard E. Clark. In the article, the authors argue that inquiry is no better than

direct instruction, and that in some cases it could be worse when students acquire

misconceptions or incomplete or disorganized knowledge. This stance fails to take into

account the development of the student outside of the content area. Critical thinking and

problem solving are life lessons that students are able to practice within an inquiry

based lesson. Further, the teacher should dismiss any misconceptions that students

may develop, and if the teacher fails to do so, then whos to say that these teachers

would be any better at dismissing misunderstandings in a direct instruction style lesson.

It wouldnt make sense to argue that direct instruction does not have its place

within the classroom, and as would the argument that every lesson should be 100%

inquiry based. Through my time observing and the research Ive conducted, I would

argue that the best lessons blend both aspects in a timely and effective manner.

Certain disciplines seem to have already adopted an inquiry style system.

Medicine, [and] engineeringfocus their teaching on problem-based learning, a

specialized form of inquiry-based learning, and are some of the most intense and
 7

rigorous educational programs one could enlist in (Healey,4). There is always a demand

for doctors, and recently there has been a great demand for engineers, and so it is

important that we begin to introduce our secondary education students to these

teaching practices so that they are somewhat familiar with it if/when they move on the

college to study medicine or engineering. Learning in an inquiry style classroom is

something that takes a bit of getting used to, so the sooner we expose our youth to it,

the sooner they will become familiar with it.

Constructing a Plan

Armed with this research, and my observations in the classroom, I set out to

design a lesson plan that effectively used structured inquiry concepts. The lesson was

an introduction to the imaginary numbers, and the concept of i. When designing a

lesson plan, I tried to use as much structured inquiry as possible, however I felt it critical

to set some time aside for direct instruction. I planned to use this time to introduce that

= 1 and ! = 1. From here, I jumped back to structured inquiry and asked

students to use this information to come up with answers to what ! and ! equal. I had

given students a problem and a method in which to follow, and allowed them time to

think and come up with a solution on their own. I believe that this is a better method

than simply telling them that ! = and ! = 1, because going forward they will be

asked to find things like !" and need to do so by rewriting it as products of powers of

that they already know the value of, similar to how they used and ! to find ! and ! .

I also allowed time for students to explore a number of example problems that included

working with .
 8

Being that this is an introductory lesson, my first impression was that it would be

difficult to implement inquiry, and that I would end up spending a lot of time on direct

instruction. However, once I got to work on my lesson plan I noticed that integrating

inquiry was easier than I imagined. As it was stated before, one of the goals is to get the

students involved and actively participating, and so I did so by allotting time for them to

solve problems, share answers with the class, and help me work through some example

problems on the board.

Reflection

Overall I think that the lesson plan I created was an effective one. Considering it

was an introductory lesson, I felt that the extent to which I could challenge the students

was limited. Also, the application of imaginary numbers is difficult to see in upper level

mathematics (I have not come across it in my three years of math classes at Manhattan

College) as well as in the real world. Nevertheless, I think that my use of practice

problems was an effective integration of structured inquiry that allowed students time to

learn how to work with this newfound idea of imaginary numbers. As mentioned prior, I

did use some time for direct instruction, however that was simply to set up the inquiry

part of the lesson that would come after.

Imaginary numbers dont come up often in many every day situations, so it would

have been difficult to come up with real life examples where students could collect and

analyze data. Understanding this reality, I tried to choose sample questions that

incorporated things students had already learned, such as factoring, so that the

questions had a bit more complexity to them.

 9

Conclusion

Math is tricky. Its tricky for students to learn, and it can be tricky for teachers to

teach. People have different views on what should be taught, and how it should be

taught. As the research in this paper demonstrates, there are conflicting views on

inquiry style teaching, however I maintain that it is a style that students can benefit

greatly from. Too often teachers will give definitions, concepts, or theories, without an

example or practice problem to detail how it can be applied. For me, a definition or

theory without an example paints an incomplete picture. Anyone can read a definition

and make some sense of it, but have they really learned anything. Students need to be

able to work with concepts, and think through problems they face when trying to answer

questions. Direct Instruction has its place in education, however, when teachers rely on

it for every lesson they develop, the student is robbed of their ability to practice critical

thinking and problem solving. They may be attentive for a class period or two, but week

after week, month after month, they will begin to lose interest, and passively sit through

class waiting for the bell to ring. Incorporating inquiry into lessons is an excellent way to

increase students participation, and develop a learning environment that is fun,

interesting, and above all, effective.

 10

Bibliography

Banchi, H.,& Bell, R. (2008).The many levels of inquiry. Science and children, 46(2), 26.

Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science scope, 23(6), 42-44.

Healey, M. (2005). Linking research and teaching exploring disciplinary spaces and the

role of inquiry-based learning. Reshaping the university: new relationships

between research, scholarship and teaching, 67-78.

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during

instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery,

problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational

psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.

Schmid, S., & Bogner, F. X. (2015). Effects of students effort scores in a structured

inquiry unit on long-term recall abilities of content knowledge. Education

Research International, 2015.