The lesson this morning was much of a review of a human physiology class that I took in high school. I originally liked the idea that we were beginning the lesson with a larger meta-question of: what is the optimum combination of inquiry approaches to teaching with teacher-directed lecture discussion? I also liked the idea that we were actively participating in an experiment and thus one example of inquiry.

Although the experiment allow us all to take part in an active form of inquiry working together in groups, I thought that some of the time could have been used in a slightly different way. As the lecture was concluding because of time constraints, it almost seemed as though we were finding ourselves abruptly interrupting a rich dialogue taking place.

I really resonate with what Ashley said about having a particular knowledge in order to complete the lab today and how much of the information presented in the lecture, although extremely insightful and interesting, was not necessarily required to understand the experiment. Now, of course I found the content of the lecture that Professor Waldron presented highly interesting, yet at the same time I can honestly say that I was not able to recall much of the information that I learned and if I needed to recall information for the lab I would not be able to do so.

Now, unlike Ashley I did take biology in freshman year of high school, as well as AP biology, marine biology, human anatomy and physiology, Biology 101, 102 at Bryn Mawr and Biology and Public Policy, also at Bryn Mawr. With this being said I did have a little more background so to speak with this topic, yet I was still unable to recall much of the information that was presented in the lecture. Therefore, a longer lecture would have been greatly valued if the lecture coincided with the lab. 

Now that above is written in more of a hypothetical situation in which the experiment was highly related to the lecture. However, since it was not, I would comment that perhaps the time spent addressing the meta-question or people’s comments on the meta-question could have been elongated. Since for much of the past time in the institute during the summer institute has been built around conversation and open ended dialogue between the teachers here, I feel as though more time could have been allotted for that.

I greatly enjoyed having Professor Ingrid Waldron come visit and it’s a shame we could all not have continued on with the discussion of the meta-question in greater detail!

I enjoyed Ingrid Waldron's AM session. There was a lot of information about the human heart structure. I worried that we would be tested on the information, but it turned out to be less intimidating. I liked her graphics and I would like those exact charts for my classroom. Of course I do not know yet if they're applicable because I haven't yet starting teaching at my new job. In Ingrid's lecture there were many terms that we reviewed, but in the inquiry lesson, much of that lecture content wasn't translated (in my opinion) to the hands-on lesson. In past years, the FOSS or STI science kits were a separate curriculum that I used as Guided Inquiry, to meet state standards. It wasn't like, let'slearn subject concepts, then let's do a related hands on inqiury. It was one or the other. Now I am going to a school where they prefer hands-on activities, but they also want me to teach content. So my goal will be to teach the content using published textbooks, and to incorporate inquiry that's directly connected to the content.

This morning's session with Ingrid Waldron seemed promising enough when she began with a "meta question": "What is the optimum combination of inquiry-based approaches to teaching and teacher-directed lecture/discussion?"  Her beginning lecture appeared very one-sided--we, the participants, listened as she pointed to a diagram of the circulatory system and and listed facts about the heart, veins, arteries, etc.  It was quite different from the type of inquiry-based discussion I have become accustomed to in the past week and a half, and I can't say that I enjoyed it.  To put it in Susan's words, we the orchestra was silent while the conductor gave instructions.  It would have been more beneficial to pause at different points in the lesson, discuss what was just said and ask for student opinions/questions.  

The turning point, at least for me, came when I attempted to answer one of her questions about the thickness of ventricle walls and answered incorectly.  Her response was to pick up on the part of my answer that was correct and try to rephrase the question so it incorporated this, then ask it in a different way.  I felt that this technique worked in our group setting because it did not induce any kind of embarrassment on my part, and the question was still left open for someone else's interpretation (in the end, Joyce triumped!).  Additionally, Dr. Waldron transferred more authority into the hands of her "students" by asking for participants to add to each other's answers.

The inquiry-based activity involving pulse-taking was, I thought, an excellent way to make what we had just learned something tangible.  Many people, especially younger students, are tactile learners.  Feeling each other's veins pulse with life brought us closer to truly understanding the idea of "circulation."  Afterwards as we were discussing the advantages and disadvantages of a lecture-based lesson versus something more hands-on, Dr. Waldron seemed a bit uncomfortable when she gave a short laugh and admitted she has been "loosey goosey" in letting us run the experiments on our own.  In my opinion, she had nothing to be uncomfortable about.  Our "loose" session was informative and fun, rich and appealing.  What had seemed so distant on the screen came to life (no pun intended) because we were allowed to take the material to whatever level we wished and apply it in a way that we could understand individually. 

Dr. Waldron's lamentation of the fact that students working on their own often learn "misinformation" from each other (and her description of this as a "quality control issue") saddened me a bit because the usefulness of this "misinformation" was not recognized.  As we have discussed before in the institute, the brain learns through discrepancies between what it expects and what it observes.  "Misinformation" allows students' different opinions to be expressed so that none of them feel inadequate or unheard; a review session after the activity would solve the problem of students walking away "misinformed."  And who is to judge which students' thoughts are of lesser "quality" than the others?

  Very interesting discussion and lecture on and what we feel are the best avenues of learning for our students.  Lecture vs. Inquiry..... which is better? I think in education we have to  use various modes of learning in which to communicate our thoughts and ideas to our students. 

What is inquiry vs. the connotations that surround it? It doesn't have to be this hands on process that doesn't get across much content. Here is an article outlining different types of teaching and learning, The Many Faces of Inductive Teaching and Learning.