Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thanks for your candid opinion and response. I didn't realize that was who you were talking about. I haven't attended a workshop or tried it out yet... I do see your point about teaching your students versus average students.
I guess it doesn't take into account if you are teaching AP physics / chemistry versus regular on track students? I agree that if you feel that this is dumbing down what you're doing, then you probably shouldn't be doing this and continue with the things that align with the expectations of your students and not the "average student".
(Besides, unless the principal or whoever is observing you knows a thing or two about chemistry and physics you can make a lesson look like something it's not just to please him / her..)
Modeling is interesting and a good fit for physics but slow and results in less material being covered. One could argue that if what is being taught is being taught to more depth that is ok. IMO they are stretching to apply it lock stock and barrel to chemistry (I see areas of good fit and areas where I think what are they smoking?). The model becomes the model of the atom (it follows the historical discoveries in science in order). It's an interesting concept but IMO it starts way too far back. The assumptions is that students don't know what atoms are. I don't know about your district but my kids come to me knowing about protons, electrons and neutrons so to present atoms as the smallest particle of matter (little billiard balls) seems like we're going backwards. I like to start with ions, isotopes and radioactive decay (my kids know how to balance chemical equations before they reach my class so I can get away with this) Radioactive decay isn't even in the modeling curriculum that is typically taught in one year. (Units 1-9 if you look at the materials)
There is an alternate order that allows for the structure of the atom to be taught in semester 1 if you're in a school that has common final exams but they don't recommend using the alternate ordering. They claim it doesn't work as well.
I can see using this program as is in a school where your students are coming to you with very little science knowledge and you have to start back at the beginning. I don't need to start with states of matter because my students already know it. They learn about density in physical science. There's a mismatch here as well. Even though certain topics are covered in the physical science units there is no alternate chemistry or physics ordering to accommodate that fact. It's as if the curriculum for each subject is separate from the others. I realize that all schools don't have physical science but those that do should have a different modeling chemistry version IMO because of what has already been taught. The presenters did tell us that many schools simply use the first four units from the chemistry and physics modeling materials as their physical science course and then start the higher class with unit 5. I could see doing that. While I do feel that the chemistry units are dummying down the material that might be just what the doctor ordered for 9th grade physical science students. As long as balancing equations is covered I'm good. I find students have an easier time with radioactive decay equations if they know how to balance regular equations.
The program isn't without merit. The issues with inquiry learning are that students must have adequate backgrounds and mental abilities to handle it and you have to watch for misconceptions. Sometimes the concepts students learn are incorrect and then you have to get them to unlearn the incorrect concept and replace it with the correct one. It is not a good fit for the way I teach chemistry as I'm after inquiry as the end result of my teaching not inquiry as a means of learning. I want my students questioning what happens because of their ability to pull from different concepts and I do get a hand full of students there every year. Well I won't get there this year but I have in years past. I'm told that's ok because students are making connections with modeling....with the help of a little (or a lot of as the case may be) guided teaching on the side in my class... Just don't tell the other chemistry teacher. He thinks modeling is the best thing since sliced bread and all other programs should just be thrown into the bon fire. I do have to admit that it's a lot less work for me. I have a lot more free time this year. I'm not on here as much as I used to be. I tend to post as a means of taking break when I'm really busy and on my computer all the time. I have entire days when I don't even turn it on anymore.
Having an administrator who hates me has made me very good at making my lessons look like something they are not... As the year progresses and my students know more I'm deviating from the plan more and more. I'm pacing faster than the other chemistry and physics teachers so I call it enrichment. The material isn't tested but it's taught and I find if I go farther my kids do better on the assessments. I find that if you go beyond the material they're being tested on they understand the material they're being tested on better. I'll figure out how to turn this into my own brand of teaching (one that works for me and my students) but I'd really just write my own program and borrow the things I like from others.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 01-31-2016 at 05:34 PM..
Does anyone who teaches chemistry or physics on here use, or is familiar with the Modeling Instruction method? https://modelinginstruction.org/ I've seen a TED talk on that method by one of its users. It seems to not be 100% inquiry but it involves students doing a lot of diagramming and explaining concepts to each other to come up with the correct predictions.
For background: I've been teaching chemistry and physics - both general and AP - for over 2 decades. On our state's standardized exams, I have some of the best growth scores in the state. I am consistently in the upper 60's - lower 70's, percent-wise, in getting my AP students to pass the exams. So, I consider myself to be a fairly decent teacher.
I hate both the inquiry-based and modeling methods. I have spent a lot of time (wasted) trying to make it work for me, but I simply don't get the same results when using my own personal method. Wanna know what it is?
Lecture/discussion
Practice
Re-teach
Practice
Re-teach
Assess
Next chapter
Now this doesn't include the labs I do (which are not as many as I'd like due to funding, but that's another thread), which more or less utilizes modeling &/or inquiry-based learning to a degree.
I choose this method because it's what works for me, it's what was used by my teachers, and most importantly - for these college-bound students - it's what the students had better get used to in preparation for college.
And as I said, I have great success in using these rather traditional methods, and therefore the administration leaves me alone. I know of a couple of other chemistry/physics teachers within our system that utilize the modeling &/or inquiry-based methods extensively, but do not have anywhere near the scores - actual or growth - that I do. They thoroughly enjoy their methods, and we all know standardized scores aren't completely indicative of success, but I stand by my own tried-and-tested traditional means. YMMV.
Like anything else, it's all about the teacher and the implementation. What works great for one person, will not work for another. If the other person doesn't buy in, it will work even less. That's the problem with K-12 - they want to can good teaching and then force it down everyone's throats. Teaching is part art form - it can't be canned.
I've now seen several different things called 'inquiry-based' and they were all different. I've also seen something called "direct" instruction with was clearly inquiry based. I've seen one amazing math teaching method that completely changed my outlook on teaching and math, and then seen the same method in a 'canned' version which was just awful.
To succeed in K-12 and not lose your mind you have to sort of dodge the kool-aid. Say sure, OK, to everything, and then put your own spin on it so that it works. If the admin is too micromanaging to let that happen, then you've just discovered why k-12 education sucks.
Very insightful responses, everyone. Thanks for sharing.
(It's not every day you get to hear honest opinions like these without being tossed into the 'bonfire' or something like that).
Do ya'll mind a comment from a non teacher? Ivory, if I've understood your various posts correctly, you came to teaching from a background as a practicing engineer/chemist or something like that? If that's the case, you probably have a much greater depth of knowledge than most people. So you understand that students must learn the fundamentals before they can begin to learn by self discovery. Heck, I get college graduates (I manage a research facility) who still don't know how to do inquiry based research -- we have to teach them. So I wouldn't expect school age kids to be able to do it consistently. I agree with you.
I'm struggling with using inquiry based learning in my high school physics and chemistry classrooms (my admins see it as THE Method to teach science). I decided to do a little research and the first research based journal article I read was about how inquiry based learning doesn't work and when it does work how it's no more effective than traditional guided learning. Unfortunately, I'm the odd man out at my school as the other teachers LOVE inquiry based learning and swear by it. I feel like I'm going at a snails pace and my students really aren't getting it (though grades are high because so little material is actually taught and tested). I'm told I'm doing it wrong but no one has any suggestions for fixing that problem.
What's your take on inquiry based learning? Love it? Hate it? Something in the middle?
Would those of you who said they love inquiry based learning mind explaining what you do? How much do you teach before the inquiry activity if at all? How do you deal with groups that simply do the experiment/activity poorly and get poor results? How do you deal with kids coming to the wrong conclusion and then having difficulty letting go of what they believe because of their interpretation of what they saw?
I've been teaching Algebra 1 to lower- and on-level students for 5 of my 7 years of teaching so far (yes I am only 28!) and I can say 100% inquiry-based learning does NOT work for this type of student. Especially at the 8th-10th grade level. I tend to think I am rather traditional and don't buy in to tech "games" or "apps" or do anything online. My class is very straightforward: pass out structured notes sheets that we complete together (which I created myself), try a few practice problems, walk around and watch as they complete, go over practice problems, pass out homework worksheet (which I again created myself from scratch) that closely mimic the notes we just took. The next day, do a warm up problem based on yesterday's lesson, go over the HW answers (by showing the answer key on a document camera and having kids check their own papers with red pens), repeat.
Quiz/test time, I make a review that follows pretty much the same format as the quiz/test, and go over every answer the day before. I do not think I am really doing anything "innovative" or really dropping any of the buzz words, but my students are very successful. I've had lots of experience with special ed/co-taught classes and one year, got a class of sophomore Alg. 1 "Part 2" co-taught students to be able to successfully solve a proportion where they had to cross-multiply, FOIL when they cross multiplied, get equal to 0, factor, and solve the resulting quadratic equation. Granted, it took a while and we spent SO MANY WEEKS on factoring, but they did it and I was proud of them, and myself!
A lot of people approach lower-level classes as "they'll never be able to do this, so I won't attempt it" - and I think with that attitude, they never will be able to. But if you approach it as, yes, they can, I just need to break it up and chunk it appropriately - they can be successful. I just had a group of low-level Applied Geometry students accurately construct the medians, altitudes, and midsegments of a triangle -- and if you know anything about geometry, those are not the simplest of tasks. It's all in the approach.
Anyway, I agree with you that inquiry-based learning only works best when the students have the knowledge they need to get to the goal. If I just told my students "Your goal is to isolate x, have at it!" without teaching them the proper skills of using inverse operations, etc. etc., they'd have no clue what to do. Many would get frustrated and shut down.
I've been teaching Algebra 1 to lower- and on-level students for 5 of my 7 years of teaching so far (yes I am only 28!) and I can say 100% inquiry-based learning does NOT work for this type of student. Especially at the 8th-10th grade level. I tend to think I am rather traditional and don't buy in to tech "games" or "apps" or do anything online. My class is very straightforward: pass out structured notes sheets that we complete together (which I created myself), try a few practice problems, walk around and watch as they complete, go over practice problems, pass out homework worksheet (which I again created myself from scratch) that closely mimic the notes we just took. The next day, do a warm up problem based on yesterday's lesson, go over the HW answers (by showing the answer key on a document camera and having kids check their own papers with red pens), repeat.
Quiz/test time, I make a review that follows pretty much the same format as the quiz/test, and go over every answer the day before. I do not think I am really doing anything "innovative" or really dropping any of the buzz words, but my students are very successful. I've had lots of experience with special ed/co-taught classes and one year, got a class of sophomore Alg. 1 "Part 2" co-taught students to be able to successfully solve a proportion where they had to cross-multiply, FOIL when they cross multiplied, get equal to 0, factor, and solve the resulting quadratic equation. Granted, it took a while and we spent SO MANY WEEKS on factoring, but they did it and I was proud of them, and myself!
A lot of people approach lower-level classes as "they'll never be able to do this, so I won't attempt it" - and I think with that attitude, they never will be able to. But if you approach it as, yes, they can, I just need to break it up and chunk it appropriately - they can be successful. I just had a group of low-level Applied Geometry students accurately construct the medians, altitudes, and midsegments of a triangle -- and if you know anything about geometry, those are not the simplest of tasks. It's all in the approach.
Anyway, I agree with you that inquiry-based learning only works best when the students have the knowledge they need to get to the goal. If I just told my students "Your goal is to isolate x, have at it!" without teaching them the proper skills of using inverse operations, etc. etc., they'd have no clue what to do. Many would get frustrated and shut down.
I agree with you. In addition, these things come in cycles. In a few years, some researcher will put out a paper that the "traditional method" works best and teaching strategies will change again. Public schools will spend millions on new textbooks and training teachers in the "old-new" methods.
Japanese created Kumon, which was repetitive math problems until mastery. This has been a tried and proved method. Why we moved away from it to inquiry based learning only yet Kumon centers operate successfully is beyond me. Inquiry based learning - especially for math problems do not provide enough practice problems. Practice problems are key!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
Just don't tell the other chemistry teacher. He thinks modeling is the best thing since sliced bread and all other programs should just be thrown into the bon fire. I do have to admit that it's a lot less work for me. I have a lot more free time this year. I'm not on here as much as I used to be. I tend to post as a means of taking break when I'm really busy and on my computer all the time. I have entire days when I don't even turn it on anymore.
