Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Anton E. Lawson1
Anton E. Lawson, Ph.D., is a Professor of Biology at Arizona State University, Tempe,
AZ 852871501; anton.lawson@asu.edu.
Solving the Problems
The following tips are offered as ways of solving the problems.
1. Some students do not participate enough (serious problem).
There are three points to keep in mind while students are engaged in inquiries. First,
make sure that working groups stay as small as possible given the available materials
and the nature of the tasks. Generally, students should work in teams of two because
groups of three or more provide too much opportunity for nonparticipation. Second, de
cide ahead of time about how much time students will need to complete specific tasks
(e.g. make initial explorations, design and conduct experiments, plot and analyze data)
and inform them of these time guidelines before they start. When students know how
long they have to complete a task, they are better able to pace their work and stay on
task. Unfortunately, making effective timemanagement decisions requires a good deal
of experience. Nevertheless, strive to master classroom timing as soon as possible.
Generally, plan a variety of activities and plan more than you expect to complete to
avoid the problem of students with nothing left to do while instructional time remains.
Third, always monitor student progress by walking about the lab and watching and
listening. If a particular group is having difficulty getting started, stop and offer helpful
hints/suggestions/leading questions—but no directives as these limit thinking. Also, if
one or more groups finishes early, have additional questions or tasks “up your sleeve”
so faster groups stay busy until slower ones finish. It also helps when students have a
specific tobegraded assignment that they must complete and hand in.
During class discussions, the best way to encourage participation is to use effective
questioning techniques. Although specific questions will vary, at the core of all inquiries
lie questions of the sort presented in Figure 1. As you can see, the questions are de
signed to provoke students to make careful observations, to raise causal questions, and
to generate and test multiple hypotheses.
Using effective questioning techniques takes careful planning and lots of practice. The
careful planning involves identifying in advance exactly what questions to raise, when to
raise them, and just how to phrase them. At various points during the inquiries you will
need to raise appropriate wellphrased divergent questions (a divergent question is an
“openended” question with several reasonable answers) and then pause briefly (four to
five seconds will do) to allow students time to think about possible answers (called Wait
Time I—see Rowe 1973). Convergent questions (those with only one correct answer) do
not encourage much thinking and student participation because students either know or
do not know the correct answers. Once you ask a good divergent question, use a
shuffled deck of cards, each with a student's name, to randomly call on a student to re
spond. Once the student responds, pause again (WaitTime II). This signals that you are
giving the response careful consideration—even if you have heard similar responses
several times before or do not think it makes much sense. Following your moment of
careful consideration, reply by saying something like, “That's an interesting idea” or
“That is a possibility. I hadn't thought of that.” Make sure not to tell the student that s/he
is “right” or “wrong” because doing so signals that you are hunting for one “right” an
swer, rather than trying to get students to think for themselves.
If the student you call on is unable or unwilling to provide an answer, respond by saying
something like, “That's okay. I'll get back to you later when you have had more time to
think.” This strategy generally works well. Such students often come up with an answer
in a short time and have their hands in the air begging to be called on. When they do,
you should call on them and welcome their input. Next, use your cards to randomly se
lect another student to respond to the initial question or to comment on the first student's
idea, and so on. Continue this procedure (summarized in Figure 2) until several com
ments have been made. At this point you can allow students with additional ideas to of
fer them. This procedure typically results in several excellent student exchanges.
2. Some students do not know how to get the inquiry started (serious to moderate
problem). This problem may stem from unclear and/or incomplete introductory instruct
or remarks. Because students are not given “cookbook” instructions in how to inquire,
they must be clear on the objectives before starting a particular task (e.g. explore the
materials to raise five descriptive questions and five causal questions; generate at least
three hypotheses to answer causal question X; design and conduct tests of three of the
hypotheses listed on the board; graph data and post the graph on the board). A failure
to make objectives clear often results in confusion, hence the need to spend excessive
time helping groups get started. Nevertheless, if after having made your best attempt at
clear introductory remarks and asked students to begin, you still find that several groups
are struggling, you should stop the class and hold a discussion in which ideas from the
few groups that are making good progress can be shared and/or you can offer collective
assistance. Also see points 5, 7 and 8 below.
3. Some students do not care and do not see the inquiry as relevant to their lives
(serious to moderate problem). The key here is to admit that many of the questions
raised by the inquiries (e.g. Why do cells appear to shrink in salt water? How does water
rise in vascular plants? How do characteristics vary within species?) are in fact not dir
ectly relevant to students' lives. But most, if not all, of the scientific concepts embedded
in answering these questions are indirectly relevant (e.g. the natural selection of bac
teria to some drugs has resulted in resistant bacterial stains that can cause death; pho
tosynthesis provides all our food as well as oxygen). Point out these indirect connections
when it is appropriate to do so—typically at the end of the inquiries.
Interestingly and importantly, whether or not students see specific inquiries as relevant
has little to do with whether they “like” or “dislike” them. Instead, most students like in
quiries that raise challenging, but not overwhelming, questions. For example, most stu
dents like the candleburning inquiry because it raises a very obvious, yet challenging
question (i.e. Why does the water rise in the inverted cylinder?). The question is challen
ging because students soon discover that it cannot be answered with what initially
seemed like the obvious answer (i.e. The flame consumed the oxygen and created a
partial vacuum). Consequently, the candleburning inquiry provides a very real intellec
tual mystery and students, just like professional scientists, are “turned on” by such intel
lectual mysteries. Thus, the key to making students willing and motivated participants is
to make sure that they understand the question(s) raised, they generate a variety of
plausible answers, and have some ideas about how to test them. It also helps to fre
quently remind students that the thinking patterns employed in answering scientific
questions are also employed in answering questions in everyday life, as well as in the
professional fields in which they may someday participate.
4. Some students do not listen (moderate problem). The attention span of most stu
dents is surprisingly short. So plan your introductory remarks carefully. Make sure not to
waste the short time that you do have. Your remarks should be brief and to the point. Do
not spend excessive time taking roll, making general announcements, and/or going over
previous assignments. Generally students are much better at paying attention after they
have engaged in an exploration activity because the discussion can now center around
their common experiences. The key here is to have students do something first and talk
about it second. Remember that the exploration phase of learning cycles always pre
cedes the term introduction phase.
5. Some students lack background knowledge for inquiries (moderate problem).
The solution to this problem lies to some extent in course sequencing. Ideally, know
ledge acquired during one inquiry, from previous lectures, or from readings, serves as
background needed for subsequent inquiries. For example, in the inquiry titled, “What
Variables Affect the Passage of Molecules Through Cell Membranes?”, students learn
about the process of osmosis. Consequently, in a subsequent inquiry titled, “How Does
Water Rise in Vascular Plants?”, students use the osmosis concept to generate a hypo
thesis for water rise.
Another strategy for solving this problem is to use your introductory remarks to provide
needed background knowledge. The polarity of water molecules plays an important role
in water rise in vascular plants. Consequently, if the concept of molecular polarity has
not been previously introduced, you need to introduce it. The introduction sections in the
student lab manual often provide some of the needed background information. So you
need to read these introductions carefully prior to lab and use them to help prepare your
introductory remarks. It also helps to have students read the introduction, objectives and
materials lists prior to each lab. Often a look at the available materials is all that it takes
for students to come up with ideas of what to do.
When you arrive at the point during the inquiry when you need to elicit student hypo
theses, you must somehow send the message that you are not looking for a “right” an
swer. Rather you are looking for students to be creative and to generate a wide variety
of possible answers. Make sure to ask a divergent question such as, “What might be the
cause of such and such?” or “What other possibilities can you think of?” rather than ask
ing a convergent question such as, “What is the cause?” And when a student generates
a “partial” hypothesis—that is when s/he suggests part of an explanation but is unclear
on its details—use this as an opportunity to provide those details, or to invite other stu
dents to do so (this can also be done effectively while circulating during the exploration
phase). Such details will become important later when students attempt to test their hy
potheses (it is difficult, if not impossible to test an ambiguous hypothesis). But be careful
not to be critical of student hypotheses at this point and do not let other students be crit
ical as well. In other words, do not allow comments such as, “That hypothesis cannot be
right because of such and such.” Trying to decide which hypothesis may be right or
wrong during hypothesis generation not only causes the process to bog down, it also
makes students far less willing to generate additional hypotheses for fear of being criti
cized (Clark 1958). Also keep in mind that you may generate one or more hypotheses
yourself. This is particularly important when students fail to generate the “correct” one.
However, if you do find it necessary to generate the “correct” hypothesis, make sure that
you offer one or more “incorrect” ones as well (i.e. the proverbial red herrings). At all
costs, you need to avoid giving students the impression that your hypotheses will ulti
mately turn out “correct.”
Another excellent strategy to use whenever students are struggling to come up with hy
potheses is to stop the class discussion and ask them to convene a discussion among
the students sitting at each lab table to generate some hypotheses. In fact, this strategy
of asking students to brainstorm in small “cooperative” groups works in many other situ
ations as well (e.g. identifying key causal questions, designing experiments, deriving
predictions, deciding how best to analyze and present data, deciding what conclusions
should be drawn, figuring out how specific conclusions/concepts might be applied in
new contexts), so be prepared to call for such discussions whenever students need
more time to think.
This might be a good time to mention another key element of inquiry instruction. Most
certainly the aim is to have students generate and test multiple hypotheses and ulti
mately decide on the relative “truth” or “falsity” of each. Nevertheless, if class data are
not convincing, you must avoid the temptation to tell students the “correct” answer at the
end as doing so undermines the process and students will become unwilling parti
cipants in future inquiries. Instead, they will merely wait for you to tell them the “correct”
answer. Telling students the “correct” answer also gives them a misleading impression
of science as it reinforces the false notion that scientific knowledge comes from authorit
ies, rather than from long and typically difficult testing and retesting of alternatives. In
general, it is far better to leave students with questions than with dogmatically derived
answers.
On the other hand, some students may become too frustrated with the inquiry process if
they feel that inadequate progress is being made. If you sense too much student frustra
tion, you might try concluding an inquiry by saying something like, “Although our data do
not allow us to draw a firm conclusion, data gathered by others (e.g. other students, sci
entists X and Y) strongly support hypothesis one and do not support hypothesis two.”
Also keep in mind that time spent conducting replications and tests of ad hoc hypo
theses is often time well spent.
6. Some students talk at inappropriate times (moderate problem). No teacher likes
to have students talk while s/he is trying to address the class. To avoid this problem, do
not start talking until everyone is quiet and you have everyones' attention. A polite re
quest such as “May I have your attention please?” is very appropriate. Once everyone is
quiet, you can begin. Now if an impolite student starts talking, it will be obvious to every
one that s'he is interrupting you. A glance at the offending student should be sufficient to
stop the talking. If not, calmly walk over and stand next to the offending student while
continuing to address the class. If this does not work, you will need to ask the student to
be quiet. But remember to speak calmly and in a low voice. You do not want students to
know that they can make you lose your “cool.”
7. Some students have bad attitudes and are disruptive (moderate problem). Bad
attitudes and disruptiveness can have several causes. Frequently they occur when the
inquiries are either too challenging or not challenging enough. In general, more directed
and less abstract inquiries should precede those that require more student initiative,
more advanced reasoning skills and more abstract thought (Leonard 1989). Also, given
the emphasis on scientific reasoning in inquiry instruction, and given the typically wide
range of students' initial levels of intellectual development (i.e. their initial abilities to
reason scientifically), it is particularly important to offer appropriately challenging tasks
to students at each level of development. For example, during the inquiry titled, “How
Smart are Animals?”, some students will be appropriately challenged by trying to con
duct a controlled experiment to test isopods' response to light. However, others will find
this too easy and boring. Thus, they need to be challenged by a more difficult task, such
as designing and conducting an experiment to find out if isopods can communicate.
Consequently, you should use student scores on the reasoning pretest to alert you to
student differences in reasoning skill and use this knowledge to pose appropriate chal
lenges to individual students. You can also pair more and less skilled reasoners and ap
peal to the more skilled reasoners to become “peer” instructors to help others better un
derstand the reasoning behind the inquiries. The lessskilled reasoners will not be the
only ones who benefit from such peer instruction because trying to teach something to
others is an excellent way to clarify one's own thinking and improve one's attitude.
8. Some students do not want to think for themselves—they just want to be told
the right answers (moderate problem). In their pasts, many students have been re
warded only for knowing correct answers—not for thinking and knowing how to derive
correct answers. Their teachers just gave them the correct answers and the students
just gave them back on quizzes and exams and everyone was happy. So quite naturally,
many such students assume that knowing the correct answers is all that is going to mat
ter in the present course. So a key here is to make sure that your quizzes and exams re
quire thinking. In other words, it is crucial to write good thoughtprovoking quizzes and
exams and to make sure that students are aware of two key points early on: First, they
need to know that the instructor's job is not to dispense answers. Rather, the instructor's
job is to help raise interesting and challenging questions and to provide students with
materials and suggestions of how to seek answers. And second, they need to know that
the student's job is not merely to recite “correct” answers. Rather, as a student, one
must become good at generating multiple answers, designing and conducting ways of
testing the multiple answers, and using evidence and logic to construct convincing argu
ments for some of the answers and against others. Of course, it also helps when you
can show students that such intellectual pursuits are far more fun, and far more useful,
than the more common instructional practice of “in one ear and out the other.”
9. Some students do poorly and want extra credit (moderate problem). In general,
offering the opportunity for extra credit may simply provide students a way of avoiding a
major course objective (i.e. for them to become more accomplished scientific
reasoners). It also necessitates additional grading for the instructor. For these reasons,
extra credit should not be an option. If you tell students at the start of the semester that
extra credit is not an option, the problem should be eliminated.
10. Some students are bored (moderate to slight problem). Students who enter a
class knowing that the instructor randomly calls on students are likely to stay engaged
and alert. So make sure to use your cards. Also keep in mind that a boring instructor
produces bored students. So one of the keys is to act and sound enthusiastic, even
when you are not. A major role of the instructor in an inquiry setting is to be a fellow in
vestigator. You need to be an enthusiastic fellow investigator! A little humor also helps.
Studies have found that humor not only improves the classroom climate, it also pro
motes creative scientific thinking (Isen et al. 1982).
11. Some students socialize during lab (moderate to slight problem). Some social
izing is inevitable and even worthwhile as it contributes to positive working relationships.
Problems arise when students socialize when they should be inquiring. So walk about
the lab and watch and listen to what students are doing and saying. This not only
provides an opportunity to politely tell students to say “on task,” it also sends the signal
that you are monitoring their activities, so they had better get to work.
12. Some students participate too much (moderate to slight problem). Although
over participation is not as common as under participation, it too can be detrimental. Not
surprisingly, the solution is much the same as the solution to the under participation
problem. Instead of calling only on students who raise their hands, use your cards to
randomly call on students. This does not mean that you should never call on students
who raise their hands. But it does mean that you need not keep hearing the ideas of
over eager students at the exclusion of others.
13. Some students do not clean up after themselves (moderate to slight problem).
To solve this problem make sure to announce a cleanup policy at the start of the
semester and stick with it. For example, you may decide to allow students to work up
until a set time in the lab period and then require them all to participate in cleanup with
one or two students assigned to erasing the boards. Then do not excuse anyone until
the lab is cleaned to your satisfaction. Problems arise largely due to lack of an an
nounced cleanup policy and/or inconsistent enforcement.
14. Some students cheat and plagiarize the work of others (moderate to slight
problem). Copying on quizzes and exams can be reduced by asking openended essay
questions (as opposed to more easily copied multiplechoice and true/false questions)
and/or by creating and using alternate test forms. Unfortunately, grading essay ques
tions and creating alternate test forms is time consuming. However, in addition to redu
cing the copying problem, essay questions are relatively easy to create and often re
quire more thoughtfulness on the students' part.
A more significant problem arises when students are allowed, indeed encouraged, to
work together to complete inlab assignments, homework assignments and lab reports,
yet are asked to submit such assignments “in their own words.” No easy solution exists
for this problem. Perhaps the best thing to do is to try to make your policy clear at the
outset and remind students of it frequently during the semester. When plagiarization of
one student by another seems likely, talk to the students about the problem as soon as
possible and inform them of your concern. You may ask them to rewrite and resubmit
the assignment for credit. If the problem persists, award both papers zero points. If the
problem still persists, the students should be dealt with more severely.
15. Some students are tardy and leave early (slight problem). The key here is an
nounce your attendance policy at the start and consistently stick with it throughout the
semester. Offenses should be recorded and the offending student(s) should be made
aware that a problem exists and that it has/will cost them. Initially students should be
given some leeway as unforeseen events occur that may necessitate an occasional
tardiness or early departure. However, recurring offenses should have increasingly seri
ous consequences.