Comparison of the effects of inquiry-based cooperative learning and demonstrations in science education

The reported research project involved studying how teaching science using demonstrations, inquiry-based cooperative learning groups, or a combination of the two methods affected sixth grade students’ understanding of air pressure and density. Three different groups of students were each taught the two units using different teaching methods. Group one learned about the topics through both demonstrations and inquirybased cooperative learning, whereas group two only viewed demonstrations, and group three only participated in inquiry-based learning in cooperative learning groups. The study was designed to answer the following two questions: 1. Which teaching strategy works best for supporting student understanding of air pressure and density: demonstrations, inquirybased labs in cooperative learning groups, or a combination of the two? 2. And what effect does the time spent engaging in a particular learning experience (demonstrations or labs) have on student learning? Overall, the data did not provide sufficient evidence that one method of learning was more effective than the others. The results also suggested that spending more time on a unit does not necessarily equate to a better understanding of the concepts by the students. Implications for science instruction are discussed.

Improving learning by connecting chemistry curriculum to students' experiences

The purpose of the study was to design, implement, and assess the effects of a teaching unit about fuel sources and chemical energy on students’ learning. The unit was designed to incorporate students’ experiences in a way that was aligned with the Michigan High School Content Expectations. The study was completed with all of the students taking General Chemistry in a rural Michigan high school in the 2010-11 school year. There were 138 participants total. The participants were mostly Caucasian and the majority were in the 11th grade. Of these, 77 constituted the experimental group and were taught the unit. The additional 61 participants in the control group were given the posttest only. Data was derived from the results of pre/post tests, final assessment projects, and the researcher’s observations. A pretest that contained questions about the fuel sources was administered at the beginning of the unit. An identical posttest was administered at the completion of the unit. A final assessment project required students to choose the best fuel source for the area, and support their opinion with facts and data from their research or the learning activities and labs performed in class. The results of the study revealed that the teaching unit did produce significant learning gains in the experimental group. The results also indicated that the teaching unit added value to the current General Chemistry curriculum by expanding what students were learning. The instructional goals of the unit were aligned with the Michigan High School Content Expectations. The results also revealed that the students were able to learn to support their thinking and decisions with explanations based on the data and labs. These are essential science literacy skills. The study supported the view that connecting the required curriculum with students’ experiences and interests was effective, and that students can learn important science literacy skills, such as providing support for arguments and communicating scientific explanations, when given adequate teacher support.

Looking at the effectiveness of an earth science unit designed using the Understanding by Design process

This report shares my efforts in developing a solid unit of instruction that has a clear focus on student outcomes. I have been a teacher for 20 years and have been writing and revising curricula for much of that time. However, most has been developed without the benefit of current research on how students learn and did not focus on what and how students are learning. My journey as a teacher has involved a lot of trial and error. My traditional method of teaching is to look at the benchmarks (now content expectations) to see what needs to be covered. My unit consists of having students read the appropriate sections in the textbook, complete work sheets, watch a video, and take some notes. I try to include at least one hands-on activity, one or more quizzes, and the traditional end-of-unit test consisting mostly of multiple choice questions I find in the textbook. I try to be engaging, make the lessons fun, and hope that at the end of the unit my students get whatever concepts I‘ve presented so that we can move on to the next topic. I want to increase students‘ understanding of science concepts and their ability to connect understanding to the real-world. However, sometimes I feel that my lessons are missing something. For a long time I have wanted to develop a unit of instruction that I know is an effective tool for the teaching and learning of science. In this report, I describe my efforts to reform my curricula using the “Understanding by Design” process. I want to see if this style of curriculum design will help me be a more effective teacher and if it will lead to an increase in student learning. My hypothesis is that this new (for me) approach to teaching will lead to increased understanding of science concepts among students because it is based on purposefully thinking about learning targets based on “big ideas” in science. For my reformed curricula I incorporate lessons from several outstanding programs I‘ve been involved with including EpiCenter (Purdue University), Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS), the Master of Science Program in Applied Science Education at Michigan Technological University, and the Michigan Association for Computer Users in Learning (MACUL). In this report, I present the methodology on how I developed a new unit of instruction based on the Understanding by Design process. I present several lessons and learning plans I‘ve developed for the unit that follow the 5E Learning Cycle as appendices at the end of this report. I also include the results of pilot testing of one of lessons. Although the lesson I pilot-tested was not as successful in increasing student learning outcomes as I had anticipated, the development process I followed was helpful in that it required me to focus on important concepts. Conducting the pilot test was also helpful to me because it led me to identify ways in which I could improve upon the lesson in the future.