Science as Inquiry 2008 Reflection

This workshop, which would be more accurately called the “Learning as Inquiry” Institute, worked well in giving the participating teachers adequate access to multiple different resources to build their own lessons. Although these two weeks were beneficial to the participants in more ways than one, there are some areas where there could have been better control over the workshop. The time management skills and utilization of the interns could all have been better. The amount of effort placed preparing for the weeks to come became the biggest issue throughout the two weeks and needs to be addressed to better future Inquiry institutes.

One small example where better preparation would have been helpful was in the general flow of the first day of the institute. Returning to a post I wrote on that actual day, I suggest rearranging the scheduling slightly so that the summer logistics (i.e. teaching credits, money) are followed by the computer logistics (i.e. serendip, blogs, posts). This works as a good segway for the participating teachers to create their introductions. Presenting it to the rest of the class will open the room nicely then to the discussion on inquiry.

Something else that happened during the beginning of the workshop was Wil’s excellent utilization of the institute’s first forum to have the participants think about inquiry to then have an in-depth discussion about it the following day. However, this was not practiced regularly enough throughout the two weeks, losing the opportunity for the participants and Peter and Will to get to know each other and express certain ir/relevant ideas that could not be made at the time.

Time in this institute is very limited and so it is very important to be well prepared in order to have each day run as smoothly as possible, especially when handling so much technological tools. A good way to best prepare for the many days ahead is by taking advantage of the many people working in the institute like the interns. Unfortunately, this summer there was a lack of communication between the interns and the professors conducting the institute about the basis of each day, minimizing the help the interns were able to provide.

This was definitely prevalent when the flip cameras were introduced and Wil was the only person capable of addressing the technical problems and concerns of the participants. Not only did this force Wil to redirect his attention to the participating teachers and prevent him from his own work, it forced him to take the entire burden and time that comes from attending to so many people. Speaking of the flip cameras, if it will continue to be used as an educational tool in the Institute I strongly recommend providing headphones for the participants so as to minimize the noise that can be distracting and pollute other people’s video/projects.

Although this institute may be exacerbating for the head professors running it, both Peter and Wil continuously did a great job getting and holding the teachers attention and participation. But if the number of days in the Institute continues to be a concern, might I suggest incorporating more sessions by those involved in the institute. For this summer one of the morning sessions was run by Judith Lucas-Odom about watershed which was very well received by the remaining participants. I want to encourage Peter and Wil to continue this and ask other educators if they would also do the same because this allows both of them to work more closely with the participant. On top of that, this also gives these participating teachers a more personal resource that is available after the session is over.

Similarly, the teachers from Bryn Mawr College that have a close relationship with science education and/or education in general should also be asked to come and have a session done like Anne Dalke did so very nicely on metaphors and science. And this idea should not stop here, making one, if not some, of the sessions be run by the intern(s) in future Inquiry institutes will not only satisfy Peter and Wils problem, it gives the intern(s) a more active role that was lacking this summer.

Another issue that arose in this institute, which also occurred in the Brain and Behavior Institute, was clearly establishing the expectations of the institute. In this Science as Inquiry institute, the participants were too easily wrapped up working with the Flip Video application, losing sight of and taking time away from other important activities/discussions. This issue grew so much that there was not even time at the end of the institute to fully criticize/comment on one another’s videos.

One way to prevent this from repeating itself would be by introducing the flip-camera towards the end of the institute, thereby minimizing the time available to play with the flip video application to one-two days. In addition to that scheduling change, with the introduction of the flip-camera, it should be made clear that its utilization is only as one other tool that is optional for the participants’ current and/or final work. This clarification will prevent the participating teachers from dedicating an excessive amount of time solely to video making as oppose to modifying and bettering lesson plans for use in their classrooms.

For without the intentions of the institute clearly stated, participants will unnecessarily try to juggle both remaking/bettering the morning lessons/models for themselves and learning how to maneuver the flip camera and program successfully enough to create a video. This will ultimately make the participants question whether the work they are doing is sufficient. To avoid this stress, there should be daily presentations of modified models/less

This workshop, which would be more accurately called the “Learning as Inquiry” Institute, worked well in giving the participating teachers adequate access to multiple different resources to build their own lessons. Although these two weeks were beneficial to the participants in many ways, there are some areas where there could have been better control over the workshop. The time management skills and utilization of the interns could all have been better. The amount of effort placed preparing for the weeks to come became the biggest issue throughout the two weeks and needs to be addressed to better future Inquiry institutes.

One small example where better preparation would have been helpful was in the general flow of the first day of the institute. Returning to a post I wrote on that actual day, I suggest rearranging the scheduling slightly so that the summer logistics (i.e. teaching credits, money) are followed by the computer logistics (i.e. serendip, blogs, posts). This works as a good segway for the participating teachers to create their introductions. Presenting it to the rest of the class will open the room nicely then to the discussion on inquiry.

Something else that happened during the beginning of the workshop was Wil’s excellent utilization of the institute’s first forum to have the participants think about inquiry to then have an in-depth discussion about it the following day. However, this was not practiced regularly enough throughout the two weeks, losing the opportunity for the participants and Peter and Will to get to know each other and express certain ir/relevant ideas that could not be made at the time.

Time in this institute is very limited and so it is very important to be well prepared in order to have each day run as smoothly as possible, especially when handling so much technological tools. A good way to best prepare for the many days ahead is by taking advantage of the many people working in the institute like the interns. Unfortunately, this summer there was a lack of communication between the interns and the professors conducting the institute about the basis of each day, minimizing the help the interns were able to provide.

This was definitely prevalent when the flip cameras were introduced and Wil was the only person capable of addressing the technical problems and concerns of the participants. Not only did this force Wil to redirect his attention to the participating teachers and prevent him from his own work, it forced him to take the entire burden and time that comes from attending to so many people. Speaking of the flip cameras, if it will continue to be used as an educational tool in the Institute I strongly recommend providing headphones for the participants so as to minimize the noise that can be distracting and pollute other people’s video/projects.

Although this institute may be exacerbating for the head professors running it, both Peter and Wil continuously did a great job getting and holding the teachers attention and participation. But if the number of days in the Institute continues to be a concern, might I suggest incorporating more sessions by those involved in the institute. For this summer one of the morning sessions was run by Judith Lucas-Odom about watershed which was very well received by the remaining participants. I want to encourage Peter and Wil to continue this and ask other educators if they would also do the same because this allows both of them to work more closely with the participant. On top of that, this also gives these participating teachers a more personal resource that is available after the session is over.

Similarly, the teachers from Bryn Mawr College that have a close relationship with science education and/or education in general should also be asked to come and have a session done like Anne Dalke did so very nicely on metaphors and science. And this idea should not stop here, making one, if not some, of the sessions be run by the intern(s) in future Inquiry institutes will not only satisfy Peter and Wils problem, it gives the intern(s) a more active role that was lacking this summer.

Another issue that arose in this institute, which also occurred in the Brain and Behavior Institute, was clearly establishing the expectations of the institute. In this Science as Inquiry institute, the participants were too easily wrapped up working with the Flip Video application, losing sight of and taking time away from other important activities/discussions. This issue grew so much that there was not even time at the end of the institute to fully criticize/comment on one another’s videos.

One way to prevent this from repeating itself would be by introducing the flip-camera towards the end of the institute, thereby minimizing the time available to play with the flip video application to one-two days. In addition to that scheduling change, with the introduction of the flip-camera, it should be made clear that its utilization is only as one other tool that is optional for the participants’ current and/or final work. This clarification will prevent the participating teachers from dedicating an excessive amount of time solely to video making as oppose to modifying and bettering lesson plans for use in their classrooms.

For without the intentions of the institute clearly stated, participants will unnecessarily try to juggle both remaking/bettering the morning lessons/models for themselves and learning how to maneuver the flip camera and program successfully enough to create a video. This will ultimately make the participants question whether the work they are doing is sufficient. To avoid this stress, there should be daily presentations of modified models/lesson plans or relevant work for who ever wants to present. The hope of course is that all of the participating teachers will have something to present by the end of each day, whether it is complete or a work-in-progress. But if not, on the last day of the institute there should be a mandatory presentation implemented to make sure every participant has had a chance to present their most valued work.