Leading view papers – Days 1 to 7

Scientific inquiry promotes deep learning

 

 

Introduction

The Australian Science and Mathematics School (ASMS) has a mission to be a leading school in facilitating reform and innovation in the teaching and learning of science and mathematics. A current initiative at the ASMS explores how aspects of the reform and innovation are being developed and implemented with a focus on promoting deep learning through the Projects of Scientific Inquiry program.

This report outlines the conceptual thinking that has shaped the Australian Science and Mathematics School approach to deep learning, outlines the particular model of learning that the school is using to develop its program, explains how the Project of Scientific Inquiry has been implemented with students, and reports on feedback from students who have been involved in the Project of Scientific Inquiry.

A theoretical model for deep learning through scientific inquiry

The Australian Science and Mathematics School has developed a model for deep learning that suggests students should work with both familiar and unfamiliar problems, in both familiar and unfamiliar contexts. This derives from the long-standing work of Bloom in regard to developing a taxonomy for engagement, and Biggs and Entwistle with regard to principles for deep learning.  Similar ideas have recently been articulated in the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust pamphlet, A New Shape for Schooling: Deep learning. The ASMS proposes that, to achieve deep learning, student experience should encompass some rich combination of the dimensions of:        

• thorough engagement with key knowledge and significant ideas
• transfer and application to unfamiliar contexts
• analysis and interpretation of unfamiliar problems
• creation of novel and effective solutions.

 

Diagram1: The model for deep learning used at the Australian Science and Mathematics School.

Deep learning is connected learning. When students are engaged in a rich and challenging task, there will be many drivers to maintain their interest and many different possible avenues in which their learning can be extended. Deep learning is an iterative process. It is not something that, once mastered, is put aside. Deep learning is an ongoing process of learning throughout life, where the emphasis will vary across the four dimensions, according to a range of circumstances appropriate to the particular context of the learning and features of the learning. In a holistic sense, deep learning should display a significant affective/motivational dimension that generates a commitment to further learning. Deep learning should also display an effective/ intellectual dimension that generates a capacity for rigorous and creative thinking.

Projects of Scientific Inquiry at the Australian Science and Mathematics School

The Projects of Scientific Inquiry were developed at the ASMS to engage the students in a challenging activity that develops both the capacities for scientific literacy and rigorous scientific research. The intention was to create a learning activity of sufficient scope to provide a meaningful opportunity for deep learning. Deep learning, in this case, was seen to involve four key components:

• engagement with significant scientific knowledge and understandings
• transferring and applying knowledge and understanding to unfamiliar circumstances
• analysing and interpreting unfamiliar data
• demonstrating understanding through preparing an investigation report and making a public presentation.

Organisation of Projects of Scientific Inquiry

The Projects of Scientific Inquiry (PSI) was a semester long (16 weeks) unit of work with a time allocation of two sessions each, of 100 minutes per week. It is worth noting that this allocation of 50 hours of scheduled time for the PSI would be the equivalent to a regular subject in a traditional curriculum at this level of schooling. Organisationally, the PSI was linked to the Central Study of Earth and Cosmos, with a team of teachers having key responsibility for delivering the PSI with two groups, each of about 80 students.

The PSI was organised in four stages. Stage 1 was the introduction and engagement. Over a period of eight sessions, the students were introduced to the concept and methodology of scientific inquiry, and were given a series of small investigations, literature studies and conducted a directed practical investigation to help them understand the key skills that would be needed in their own major project.

In Stage 2, the students worked to develop their own focused inquiry question that reflected their particular interests and a working hypothesis for testing. The students conducted a thorough literature search in the area relevant to their inquiry, established mentor contact and developed a PSI planning document. This stage ran over eight sessions for most students.

The students undertook their own experimentation and data collection in Stage 3. Many of them were involved in inquiries that required longitudinal studies or the replication of experiments over time. This stage typically involved regular mentor contact and, for many students, this was outside of the school. This stage ran over 10 sessions for most students.

The final stage was when the students made the presentations of their learning. This required writing a scientific report in a formal mode, preparing and conducting a presentation of findings to peers (including mentors) and completing some personal reflection and evaluation of their project and their personal learning.

 

Diagram 2: A comparison of the stages of the Project of Scientific Inquiry with the ASMS model for deep learning.

The flavor of the Projects of Scientific Inquiry

Since the PSI was initially linked with the central study of Earth and Cosmos, many of the investigations had a cosmic connection. One group of students tried to determine what plant growth would be like in a simulated Martian atmosphere.  Another group looked at propulsion physics and ultimately constructed a slingshot that could launch a golf ball with almost the same velocity as a Tiger Woods’ driver. Yet another group applied their study of aerodynamics to try to determine what makes a cricket ball ‘reverse’ swing.

Several students moved away from the original focus on things cosmic. Some of these choices were obviously influenced by the interests and expertise of the mentors that the students established. In this regard, one team of students worked with mentors at Flinders Medical Centre to conduct a very rigorous study of the effects of termite treatments on garden worms.  Another group worked in the laboratories of the Environmental Bioremediation Centre of Flinders University to study the role of actinomycetes in improving grass pastures. Several groups became interested in measuring water quality in public waterways and tests were conducted at several locations around Adelaide to try to determine if there is a single river in Adelaide that is safe for humans to swim in.

A group of students looked at propulsion physics and ultimately constructed a slingshot that could launch a golf ball with almost the same velocity as a Tiger Woods’ driver.

Student satisfaction with the Projects of Scientific Inquiry

A survey was conducted with a sample of students as they were in the final week of completing their work on the PSI. The survey sought to gather data about the students’ engagement in, and satisfaction with, their experiences in the PSI. The survey asked five open-ended questions about the PSI (for example, what was the best thing about doing the scientific inquiry project?) and 19 questions that required a response on a Lickert scale (strongly agree, strongly disagree, and so on) on a series of statements in relation to the PSI. The statements used in the latter section were intended to reflect aspects of the four dimensions of the ADMS deep learning model. Results from the survey were aggregated to determine student responses to the dimensions of engagement with knowledge, transfer and application of understanding, analysis and interpretation of data, and innovative and creative responses to situations.

In the dimension of engagement with key knowledge and introduction to the methodology of the project, 64% of students said that the PSI was better than regular class work and 8% said it was worse than regular class work.
Diagram 3: The degree to which students considered the Projects of Scientific Inquiry to have greater engagement with knowledge than regular class work.

In the dimension of transfer and application of understanding, 66% of students said the PSI helped them more in this regard than regular class work and 9% said it was worse than regular class work.

 

Diagram 4: The degree to which students considered that the Projects of Scientific Inquiry promoted greater transfer and application of learning than regular class work.

In the dimension of analysis and interpretation, 69% of students said the PSI was better than regular class work and 8% said it was worse than regular class work.

Diagram 5: The degree to which students considered that the Projects of Scientific Inquiry promoted greater analysis and interpretation of data than regular class work.

In the dimension of innovation and creativity, 77% of students said the PSI gave them greater opportunities for creativity than regular class work and 4% said it was not as good as regular class work in this regard.

Diagram 6: The degree to which students considered that the Projects of Scientific Inquiry presented greater opportunities for creativity and innovation than regular class work.
A series of questions were also used to gather data about the student responses to the holistic dimensions of deep learning.  Overall, 65% of students suggested that the PSI gave them a commitment for further learning in the field, while 9% said that this was not the case. Similarly, 67% of students said that the PSI helped them develop skills appropriate to further learning in the field, while 11% felt that this was not the case.

The students were quite clear in their own minds as to what aspects of the PSI they did, and did not, like. Conducting their own experiments was rated by 66% of the students as one of the best things about the PSI. Other factors to rate highly were ‘freedom’ (33%), ‘learning something new’ (24%) and ‘doing something I liked’ (24%).

I presented the idea of engagement being linked to inquiry learning through the work of Anderson and Bloom and proposed that, in the ASMS model, this was best described as holistic dimensions of learning (described as developing a commitment for further learning and developing capacities for further learning in the field). In the ASMS survey, 65% of students reported that involvement in the PSI gave them a commitment for further learning in the field and 67% of students reported that the PSI helped them develop skills appropriate to further learning in the field.

Conclusion

The Project of Scientific Inquiry program at the Australian Science and Mathematics School was an attempt to implement a more student-centred inquiry driven unit of work for students in their senior secondary (years 11 and 12) science program. The Project of Scientific Inquiry sought to allow students to conduct major independent projects that would develop skills for scientific literacy and scientific inquiry in a framework of deep learning. From the teachers’ perspective, this required releasing some direct control over the prescribed content of the course to allow students opportunities to undertake their own specialist areas of study. Student feedback on their participation in the Projects of Scientific Inquiry was extremely positive. The students reported that they felt the Projects of Scientific Inquiry helped them to engage in rigorous learning of essential science knowledge and understandings, helped them transfer their understandings to new situations and to make rigorous analysis and interpretation of new information, and gave them significant opportunities to be innovative and creative with their work in science. Overall, the majority of the students reported that the Projects of Scientific Inquiry helped them to develop skills and abilities appropriate to further learning in the field, and gave them a commitment to continue with further learning in the field.

References

Anderson et al. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Longman: New York.
Barnett R. ‘Learning for an unknown future’. In Higher education research and development. Vol. 23, No. 3, August 2004. Carfax Publishing.
Biggs JB (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press: Buckingham.
Caldwell BJ (2005). ‘Transforming a school system to support personalised learning and higher order thinking’. Paper presented at the 12th International Thinking Conference, Melbourne.
Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (2006). Schooling for tomorrow: personalising education. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: Paris.
Entwistle N (1988). Styles of learning and teaching, David Fulton: London.
Goodrum D, Hackling M, Rennie L (2001). ‘The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools.’ A research report prepared for the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Commonwealth of Australia.
Goodrum D & Rennie LJ (2006). ‘The Australian school science education framework: issues paper.’ Working document prepared for the Department of Education, Science and Training, Commonwealth of Australia.
Simms E (2006). A new shape for schooling? Deep learning – 1, Specialist Schools and Academies Trust: London.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Mr Graeme Oliver is Deputy Principal of the Australian Science and Mathematics School (ASMS), at Flinders University, in Bedford Park, in South Australia, Australia.

The ASMS is a senior secondary school that was created with a mission to promote reform and innovation in the teaching and learning of science and mathematics. Staff at the school are engaged in an extensive range of action research projects that are exploring aspects of the school’s mission. This article reports on one current research project exploring how an inquiry-oriented approach to science can make learning more engaging for students and deliver high quality learning outcomes.

 Go to top of page      Go to online discussion       Go to Leading views menu