With the original purpose in mind; the comparison of inquiry methodologies at the sixth grade level were begun with Phase I (structured) in February 1996. The sixth grade science class is in a departmentalized junior high setting at Mahomet. One class period, heterogeneously grouped with no inclusion students at the time of this project, was used. Students were put into groups of 2-3 determined only by the period of their study hall. (This arbitrary construct was used only because it allowed students time to work together in the library.) Each group was given one planet in our solar system to investigate in detail. Groups were given eight school days to complete their investigation, basically on their own. They were then to present their findings as an oral group report; note cards were acceptable, and some sort of visual was expected. Two quiz questions concerning the talk were to be submitted to me to be included on the general planet quiz once all talks were finished.
On the initial day of group work a guideline of what was deemed important was given to each group. (See appendix) Other than a very brief meeting on day 3 and 5, students were to make appointments to meet their partners in the library for research. The librarians were informed of the scope of this project and were very helpful in directing researchers to sources.
The planet group talks went in order from Mercury. Before any groups gave their talk, all were informed to speak slowly and clearly for those taking notes. All were encouraged to take notes because of the imminent open note quiz.
The visuals were wonderful. Some were artistic interpretations of recent photographs of their planet, while some were downloaded from the Internet. Others were classic very recognizable drawings. Each "artist" was asked to tell a little bit about the work they had brought to show. All seemed proud and pleased to talk about their visual.
To give the talks, most groups divided the guideline into fair portions with each member reading answers to his few research points. Only a few expanded outside of the realm of the guideline topic. After all nine talks (two and a half periods) the quiz was given, most did well. They took notes on others' research and knew exactly when a specific answer was about to be given as per the guideline. I got the impression most enjoyed the group structured reports of Phase I.
At the end of the planet research quiz, I asked the questions: "what were the best and worst things about working with partners." The theme of all answers was the same: Sharing the work load with others was the best thing. The worst thing was worrying about those that do not pull their share of the load. In my estimation, we did not have a noticeable problem of free loaders, but the nagging thought seemed to permeate the students' survey responses nonetheless. (See appendix)
The more unstructured phase was begun the eight days before spring break in March. It was announced that we were going to research some of Earth's most severe weather conditions, hence the title "project storm". Kids this age are really into the destructive power of anything, the storm idea was a hit (pardon the pun). Without naming any of the great storms, I said that we could group up if desired, or not. Good friends in the classroom immediately made eye contact with each other. They were excited. In my introduction, I gave no expectations other than "You teach us what ever you learn". Two rules: a 4-person group was maximum, and no two reports on the same storm. I instructed them to think about what they wanted to do and the next day we'd go to the library as a class.
Day two in the library groups sat together; the discussions and negotiations concerning topics began. There was much floundering matching the information to the storm. Many groups tried several topics before finally dec$iding on which to actually research. The first day I would answer only specific questions concerning research points and tried desperately to not give any leads into possible topics. (I did not want to taint the "learn what you wish" inquiry approach.) One group of four boys peacefully split up into twos after negotiations were stalled.
The second and final class day in the library went much more businesslike. Groups settled immediately and began researching. I felt an underlying frustration with some groups; they found their topic but didn't know what to do with it. "What are we supposed to teach?" seemed to be the recurring question. "What ever you find interesting," was my recurring answer. Some were reading and taking notes, others were copying the encyclopedia. Some were photo" copying journal reports. After the two library days, the next few days they were to work as they wished in the classroom. Some groups needed more library time and were allowed to go during class or in their regular study hall.
In this section I'll discuss two factors for each report: first my immediate reaction written during the discussion (very brief notes only). Second, I passed a note to the reporting students immediately after they sat down asking them to write down how they thought things went. (Some examples are provided in the appendix)
Hurricane: Three girls (one absent) oral reading of facts and data about the hurricane. In class some students were not paying attention and were reviewing their notes for their ensuing discussion. The two girls covered for their absent partner well. After about six minutes of talk (no visuals) this group gave a pop quiz. An example is provided. The report was cold and factual and for the most part uninteresting to several in the room. A few questions were asked of the girls concerning hurricanes.
Both girls in the group felt immediately that they had done well.
Thunderstorm: Three boys (one absent) two visuals printed from the Internet were placed on the board. The boys wrote 3 pre-questions about thunderstorms on the chalkboard. Oral reading quiet; I'm not sure this group was interested in their topic. They read a lot of only mildly related data, much of which I'm sure was not understood by the readers.
The guys' immediate reaction; one thought it was fun and enjoyed both the research and the oral, but realized that some kids were not paying attention. The other boy thought things went went well but said he wished he'd been a little more clear.
Tornado: Three boys, no visual. During the oral reading of cold hard facts and figures, the three usually very serious boys got into a laughing fit. The information was interesting, but even more interesting and distracting was determining who was going to break out giggling next. After the report, the class was asked three questions orally.
In the boys' estimation of their performance, they all three realized that the unstoppable laughing had an impact on how others received their information. Two students thought things did not go well, and the other thought things were OK.
**(Unfortunately the remainder of the reports followed a week off for spring break)**
Tsunami: Three boys, no visual. A pretest was dictated to the class. Oral reading covered the three points only.
All of the boys wished they'd found more information on their topic. Two thought things went well otherwise, one thought things went terrible. One also decided he did not like working with partners (although it was his choice). Another also thought he did all of the work.
Lightning: A one-girl group by choice; read an original oral report, she also showed many interesting journal photos. She had posted discussion questions and passed the journal around the room for closer inspection.
She felt things went OK, but thought the pictures went better than the report itself.
Hail : Three boys, no visuals; their oral reading gave definitions and formation processes of hail. Short uninteresting to most. They had two post questions.
The three boys believed things went OK; one realized he had trouble pronouncing some words, another thought he learned a lot.
Blizzard: Two boys, no visuals. Basically another fact filled oral report with no frills. The boys asked three post questions.
Both guys thought things went well, but one admitted he had trouble finding information.
After hearing from all groups, I handed out a survey asking students to reflect on their two reports. (See appendix) Let me give the general results first and then some specific comments that students had. Question 1 asked them to compare the differences in the two reports. Most identified the scope and perceived time differences. The next three questions show how many in class prefer which report style. Remember the Storm was unstructured and the Planet was more structured.
Question 2: Which type of report did you like most?
Storm 12, Planet 8.
Question 3: Which report do you think you learned most from?
Storm 4, Planet 15.
Question 4: Which report do you think others learned most from?
Storm 4, Planet 15.
Questions 3 & 4 are consistent with each other but there does seem to be some disparity between questions 2 & 3. The students' own explanation of the differences seem to centralize around a few factors. Some liked the storm (unstructured) project better because there were no rules (expectations). They also liked the fact that they got to pick their own groups. "It's easier to work with people you know," one said. The final factor is the amount of personal interest (ownership) in the subject matter. One girl stated: "I was more attentive learning about some thing I was fascinated by." I more or less anticipated the tenor of these opinions.
Why then, if they liked the unstructured better (60%), did most students (78%) think they and their classmates learned more from the structured report format? Some opinions garnered from the survey I will expand upon.
The amount of information available was independently listed on most surveys. Kids had absolutely no trouble finding information on the planets. In fact, one young man stated that he had trouble wading through the tremendous amount of material just to answer his 10 planet (structured) research points. On the other hand, many complained about the lack of storm (unstructured) information. Perhaps in this regard, this was not a fair comparison.
Another possible explanation about why students felt better educated by the structured report, is that some commented that they felt they worked harder on their structured phase. They had specific questions to answer and they knew when they were done. As one boy put it , "I spent more time on the planet report and I looked up certain things, instead of anything we wanted."
Some kids thought the planet research material had bette"r explanations than the storm material. This may be a misconception answered by the fact that we had already begun to study planets in class as well as in their previous years. The material was probably more familiar to begin with.
Several stated that they had more time to work with the planet research, and therefore, felt better prepared for the presentation. This is basically a misconception. The amount of time was identical in days. Why this perception of being shorted? Several possibilities come to mind: The ensuing week of vacation may have had an effect of deadline for the unstructured phase. They knew the school library facility would be closed soon, so it was now or never. Also, the fact that they knew when they were finished with the structured research points may have put a feeling of closure to the first project, that the unstructured one did not have. All of the unstructured time was spent researching and putting together presentations, hardly any group thought to include a visual to enhance their classmate's learning.
All in all, both phases were worthwhile learning experiences for the class. Students seemed to genuinely enjoy both reports. In retrospect, the first phase was not really that structured. Other than being given groups and a guideline nothing else much was said. They had full responsibility to research on their own time in the library, determine the medium of the visual, and freedom to lead the planet discussion their own way. Phase II did feel a bit rushed, the research material was less prolific, and the total freedom to "learn what you wish" may have been a little overwhelming to some.
If the Phase II project, could have been done in a bit different atmosphere, I believe the unstructured research would have fared better. Topics with more research information would have made a difference. Removing the feeling of a deadline (a weeks vacation) could have reduced stress. More pre-discussion on different learning styles, may have encouraged presenters to have better "teaching" methods.
Next year I think I'll try melding Phase I & II in our research of the planets. The research material is there. The interest will be there. Learning styles could be discussed beforehand giving more freedom to create visuals, instead of simply demanding them for some unknown reason. A guideline may not be needed, most seem to understand what is "important" anyway. I can't wait to see what happens.
| Go back to the main page of the Comparative Study of Structured and Inquiry Learning |