Authentic Research Approach to Inquiry Carolyn Lowe Northern Michigan University School of Education

Reasons to do Authentic Inquiry Students not learning science processes sufficiently (Dawson, 1999). Students’ quality of inquiry work is typically below their ability (personal observation). Students really don’t know what scientists do or how they do it. Scientists don’t do science like the scientific method (they DO write about it like that).

Doing Research Utilize Reiff’s “Inquiry Wheel” for doing science. –Practice skills such as asking questions, making predictions (hypotheses), graphing, reading research. –Refer to it often during the course. Science writing follows the more traditional, linear model (the scientific method). Utilize a scaffolding approach to skills needed to do inquiry. –Use the “NSF Model” approach to model authentic scientific inquiry. –Give feedback at every stage.

COMMUNICATING WITH OTHERS REFLECTING ON THE FINDINGS ARRANGING & INTERPRETING THE RESULTS CARRYING OUT THE STUDY ARTICULATING THE EXPECTATION INVESTIGATING THE KNOWN FORMING THE QUESTION DEFINING THE PROBLEM OBSERVING QUESTIONS SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY SOCIETY The Inquiry WheelWheel Click on each underlined word for more explanation Adapted from Reiff, Harwood, & Phillipson, 2002

QUESTIONS All kinds Lots and lots All the time Ask Everyone – from yourself to the scientific community

Communicating with Others Consists of communicating with the scientific community during the study for: –Known information. –Ideas and suggestions. –Early sharing of results. –Contributing your results and conclusions to the body of scientific knowledge Consists of communicating with society to share your results and conclusions to the common body of knowledge.

Reflecting on the Findings Answers the “why” or “how” Analyzing data Developing conclusions after looking at the data – explain why you got the results. Evaluating the study – was it a “good” What would you do differently? What errors were there? What future research do you recommend?

Arranging and Interpreting the Results Answers the “what” Making sense of results (yours or others): –Are the data good? –Do they make sense? –Are their outliers? If so, what should we do with them? –Look for patterns other than what expected. Organizing data –Do statistics beginning with the mean –Make graphs or tables! –Look for patterns. –If appropriate, do more sophisticated statistics such as a correlation coefficient or chi square Should not be fudged – what you get is what you get

Carrying Out the Study May be an experiment which: –Must control variables –Must have a manipulated (or, in advanced cases more than one) and a responding variable. Manipulated variable = independent variable Responding variable = dependent variable –Must include replication –Will likely be revised at least once. May be an exploratory investigation such as identifying things such as proteins or galaxies, surveying, etc.

Articulating the Expectation Originally titled “developing a hypothesis” BUT Some scientists said they didn’t always develop a formal hypothesis Must be a prediction (PLEASE don’t use the word “guess”) Must be based on (related to) what is already known or significant observations. Best if there are alternative explanations – helps open your mind to other possibilities. Often adjusted during process.

Investigating the Known Students need to review what is already known. Resources they may use: –Primary Literature (journals, etc.) –Experts (see communicating with the scientific community) –Other students’ work –Text or trade books –Factual video –Secondary sources (guardedly – teach them how). Will continue throughout the study K through college undergraduate level science courses rarely allow students sufficient time or training to do this.

Forming the Question Focus on a more narrow, testable question that will generate data about our problem. Write the question in a way that leads to the test. May or may not end with a question mark. –The effect of dilute nitric acid such as found in acid rain on the growth of tomato plants. –Would you find fossils on the shore of the Garden Peninsula? Frequently reformed several times during study.

Wheel NOT a cycle NOT linear Science is MESSY Processes may go in many different directions through the wheel and hit a process more than once (e.g., you may communicate with colleagues throughout the study). No matter what you are doing, you need to be asking LOTS and LOTS of QUESTIONS

Observations Using senses (not just vision). Using instruments. Quantitative (numbers). Qualitative (descriptive words like color, behavior, etc.) Done throughout the study. DON’T FORGET TO ASK QUESTIONS

Defining the Problem Determining the big picture, overall focus of study. –We want to study bacteria in irradiated fruit. –We want to study the effect of heat islands on weather. –We want to study what insects you find in a disturbed area of the schoolyard. –May be revised during the course of the process.

The “NSF Model” of Inquiry Preliminary Proposal Full Proposal Submission of manuscript to journal (rough draft). Submission of final copy to journal followed by publication (final paper).

Introduction to the Project Initial instruction and practice with Inquiry Wheel components. Instruction on literature reviews by a librarian, modeling of reading primary literature, and basic interpretation of statistics by the instructor. Review of previous student’s articles as examples. Review of instructions for project.

Preliminary Proposal Bulleted list or simple narrative containing: –Topic chosen –Group members –Question –Preliminary hypothesis –Citations and a few notes from two resources. –Procedure outline –List of materials Encouraged to submit full proposal (graded) or sent back for revision.

Full Proposal After acceptance of preliminary proposal, students submit a full proposal including: –Completed introduction containing Reason for the study Literature review (must have 5 primary resources) Question Hypothesis/es –Procedure written in future tense and narrative style (not lab book style) –References –Accepted or rejected (sent back for revision) by the “granting entity”, the instructor.

Experiment After acceptance of the full proposal, the instructor provides groups with the materials. Students have approximately two months to complete the experiments, receiving feedback throughout the process. Guiding questions are used more than overt suggestions.

Rough Draft After experiment has concluded, students submit a rough draft, modeling a researcher submitting a manuscript for publication. The rough draft includes all requirements for a paper; –Complete introduction (as before) –Procedure (past tense) –Results (must include tables or graphs) –Discussion/Conclusions –References Accepted or sent back for revision until acceptable.

Final Products Students submit a final paper with corrections as made from rough draft. Scored with an extensive rubric. “Published” for current and future classes. PowerPoint presentation of about 12 slides. May include poster session as well or instead of presentation.

PowerPoint Presentation Background and design professional and appropriate. Slides include: –Title –Problem and hypothesis/es –Introduction with bullets (1 – 2 slides) –Procedure –Results (must be graph or table) –Conclusions Presentation limited to 15 minutes + 5 for questions.

Poster Must be electronically created. Each page should be backed with tag board or construction paper (or printed on large poster). Page for each section – short version. Large graph/diagrams/photos. Font easy to read. References included.