Inquiry, NGSS, & Comprehension


Hannah Youngwirth
 CONTEXT
Introduction

+Project-Based Learning
+Full Inclusion
+Access to Technology

11th grade Biology Classroom

 CONTEXT
Introduction

-Standards
-Authentic Science Experiences
-Comprehension & Connections
 Introduction FOCUS NGSS
NGSS Making science
approachable and
Increasing science student-centered¹
accessibility
Focus on making
content
connections²
Sources: 1 (Armstrong, Brickman, Gormally, & Hallar, 2011)

2 (Huff, 2016)
 ASSESS
Needs Completing for completion, not for
Assessment understanding

Experimental Exceptions
 TEST #1 COMPREHENSION?
Stem Leaf

Needs 4 5 8

5 3 4
Assessment 6 3 4 5 5

7 3 5 5 5 8 9

8 0 0 0 0 8

9 0 5 5

10 0

Class Average: 74%

How Does the Implementation of Inquiry-
Based Learning Strategies Impact
Student Science Comprehension?
 NGSS INQUIRY
Literature
Potential benefits Curiosity = Learning
Review
vs measurable
benefits Inquiry is a knowledge-
building process⁴
Teaching
Transitions³ Positive vs negative
stress⁵
Sources: 3 (Pratt, 2013)
4 (Apedoe & Reeves, 2006)
5 (Armstrong et al., 2011; Hung, 2011)
 Literature RADICAL CONSTRUCTIVISM⁶
Review
Experience + Prior Knowledge (Individual + Peer) = Learning
Modification

Sources: 6 (Dewey, 1938; Kolb, 1984; Spronken-Smith, 2018)

 ACTION
Scientific Experimentation
Action
& Scientific Literature
Assessment
Models

Student-Led Learning
 ASSESSMENT
Observations
Action
& Student Reflections
Assessment
Analysis of Student Work

Score Disciplinary Core Idea

Expectation

1 Student does not meet

2 Student begins to meet

3 Student meets expectations

4 Student exceeds
expectations
 IMPLEMENTATION
Food Webs 


Cycle 1 Bioaccumulation

DDT “Essays” 


Biome Research & Presentation

Relationship Presentations
 How Does the Implementation of Inquiry-Based
Learning Strategies Impact Student Science
Comprehension?

Cycle 1 FINDINGS
Inquiry has potential.

Instructional impact on student

performance.

Scaffolding research to support

student inquiry.
 PLAN
Cycle 2 +Experimentation
+Model-Making
+Supplemental “Student-Led Learning”
+Differentiation

-Scientific Literature
 IMPLEMENTATION
Coevolution Creation 


Cycle 2 Natural Selection Video Notes

Finch Lab 


Airplane Lab 


Cladograms 

 How Does the Implementation of Inquiry-Based
Learning Strategies Impact Student Science
Comprehension?

Cycle 2 FINDINGS
Inquiry has promise.

Detail demands attention.

Research requires supplemental

scaffolding
 BEFORE AFTER
Test #2
Test #1
Cycle 2 Stem

4
Leaf

5 8
Stem Leaf

5 0 5 8

5 3 4
6 9 9
6 3 4 5 5
7 3 3 6
7 3 5 5 5 8 9
8 0 3 3 3 5 5 6 6 8 8
8 0 0 0 0 8
9 1 3 5 8
9 0 5 5

10 0 Class Average: 85%

Class Average: 74%

 RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS
Conclusion
Models = opportunity for visualization, had a positive
impact (outside of flower model)

Scientific literature requires scaffolding & preparation

in order to reduce student stress
 RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS
Conclusion
Student led learning as both a supplemental and main
activity has potential for positive impact, but hard to
separate as was used in nearly every lesson

Experimentation consistently voted via student

reflection as “most helpful to comprehension”,
demonstrated in student performance
 LIMITATIONS
Conclusion
Teacher “tunnel vision” (Observations)

Making friends (Reactivity)

 “It’s like...I’m the director and
Reflection my students are the actors, but
the actors don’t know their
lines and I’ve barely read the
script.
And yet, the show must go on.”
 Don’t let doubts dominate
Reflection
Perfection is not practical

Students desire engagement

Teaching = Action Research

REFERENCES
Apedoe, X. S., & Reeves, T. C. (2006). Inquiry-based learning and digital libraries in undergraduate science education.
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(5-6), 321-324. doi:10.1007/s10956-006-9020-8
Armstrong, N., Brickman, P., Gormally, C., & Hallar, B. (2011). Lessons learned about implementing an inquiry-based
curriculum in a college biology laboratory classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(3), 24-48. Retrieved from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/42992859
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, Inc.
Huff, K. L. (2016). Addressing three common myths about the Next Generation Science Standards. Science Scope, 39(5),
17-19. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/43691395
Hung, W. (2011). Theory to reality: A few issues in implementing problem-based learning. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 59(4), 529-545. doi: 10.1007/s11423-011-9198-1
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall, Inc.
Pratt, H. (2013). Guest editorial: Conceptual shifts in the Next Generation Science Standards. Science Scope, 37(1), 6-8.
Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/43184286
Spronken-Smith, R. (2018). Experiencing the process of knowledge creation: The nature and use of inquiry-based learning
in higher education. University of Otago. 1-12. Retrieved from https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Experiencing-the-
Process-of-Knowledge-Creation-%3A-of-Spronken-Smith/3fee07e7280a7404e5dd99b88965be3e60b42e93