In order to do this lab, we used Jell-o jigglers as our plate tectonics, toothpicks as our roads, and mini marshmallows for buildings. According to Banchi and Bell, the type of inquiry used in this lab was structured inquiry because a guiding question was given by me and an overall lab directions were given, however students were still expected to come up with a conclusion based on what they believe would occur when they performed the lab (Banchi & Bell, 2008). Students were to use previously acquired knowledge on plate tectonics to make a solid hypothesis prior to starting the lab. Structured inquiry is considered a lower tiered level of inquiry, which while I push this group of students, works well considering the class dynamics (Banchi & Bell, 2008). This particular class has 6 students on IEP's and the other students are also low academic achievers.
Prior to passing out any supplies, I made sure to go over all safety protocols for the class. I wanted to ensure that no one would consume any food even though they may think they knew what it was. I did not want them to do what Mr. Houston did in his guided inquiry video demonstration (Laureate Education, 2010). After we went through all expectations, we passed out lab sheets and supplies. The students formulated their hypothesis and the work began.
The students read their lab sheets and went step by step through becoming architects of building of different tiers to see which one's could withstand earthquakes better.
After construction, came demolition time. The students then had to reflect on what occurred in their lab and relate it to the real world. How could anchoring a building with a toothpick affect a building in the real world?
After we created our buildings, we created faults. The students were to create divergent and convergent faults, build a "road" out of toothpicks across the fault. What would happen when the fault shifted? Again, they were to relate this to the real world and illustrate it on their lab sheets.
We ran out of time during the class on Friday for the students to complete their lab sheets in class. They were to complete their data analysis at home and will hand in as part of their homework assignment tomorrow.
Reflection:
For the most part, the lab was a success. The class was on task about 90% of the time. It is a small class, 15 students, and we were able to work in groups of two. We experienced a few moments where redirection was necessary for behavior. One student decided to throw marshmallows and had to be removed from the lab. When I developed the investigation, I thought I had made it challenging enough for the class. After watching the students, I believe I could have pushed the investigation to the next level and had a guided inquiry. Next time I believe I will give the students the guiding question, the supplies and see if they can formulate a plan to reach a plan.
I also started the class with a 10 minute video clip on earthquakes to help activate background knowledge. I still like this idea, but I feel that if I would have eliminated this aspect, the students would have had enough time to finish their lab sheets in class instead of having to complete them over the weekend at home.
I enjoyed observing and asking the students open ended questions as they were working on their projects. It is always refreshing to see them engaged in the material.
References:
Banchi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). The many levels of inquiry. Science and Children, 46(2), 26–29.
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010). Science inquiry: classroom demonstration. Baltimore, MD: Author.
