For about a week, along with a partner, we were developing our own science inquiry stations based on a specific topic. My partner and I chose fingerprinting, and developed a station centered around forensics and fingerprinting. Our desired results were for students to use the tools and techniques to "gather, process, and analyze data". (Science as Inquiry standard) We also wanted students to understand how the human body allows them to do everyday tasks. When observing our students we chose three categories we wanted them to complete including using tools properly, using proper technique, and using proper reasoning for conclusion.
My partner and I went first when acting as students for another group's inquiry station. Their station was focused on balance and various ways to balance with our bodies using specific tools and instruments including water bottles, a wooden board, and a stability ball. Initially, acting as a student was quite difficult. Our teachers were not allowed to talk to us, which made my partner and I feel slightly intimidated as we had five teachers in comparison to only two students. Eventually we tried to speak our thoughts out loud, and verbalize what was going on in our thinking. The station was definitely a challenge at first, as my partner and I had difficulty understanding the beginning prompt. After reading the added information in articles, I began to better understand how balance interacts with my body and how to improve balance with a few postures. With more time, my partner and I would have likely generated more ideas involving the given tools to test our balance in a variety of ways. Our inquiry became easier when our teachers were allowed to prompt us with two questions. My partner and I further understood what we were expected to do using our balance and the floor, and then test balance positions using the tools given.
After brainstorming some ideas on improvement for our teachers, we went on to the fingerprinting inquiry station. Observing students was easier from my point of view after being the student first, because I had a much better understanding of what the students were feeling and thinking. I believe our students gave us an advantage by verbalizing their thoughts in a way that allowed us as teachers to understand their thinking progression better. They utilized what we said as students, and probably what they wished we would have said as students. The five students met every single category we determined prior to the actual test of the station. Even though my partner and I accidentally left out an instruction, our students surprised us by inferring what they were supposed to accomplish and reason from the material given. Appropriate conclusions were made, especially in regards to forensics and popular culture crime scene shows. Students began to understand not only how fingerprints benefit their life, but also how fingerprints work as identification in a variety of experiences.
When given the opportunity to ask our students two prompting questions, we corrected our mistake and gave the students the opportunity to try to identify different fingerprints based solely on ridges, shape, and size. This gave the students a chance to work with the fingerprints in a different way than they previously did. The other prompt we chose was used to direct students to make more connections with fingerprinting and the outside world, in addition to connections with the articles we provided regarding forensics. The discussion with our students gave us greater insight and ideas for how to better our inquiry station, in a variety of ways. We would make our explanations a little more clear, and remember to include only the important steps in our directions. We may need to re-think the comparison of the fingerprints so that everyone does two sets of the same finger from the same hand because each finger has a different print. Overall, my partner and I were happy with our results and station, as we felt our goals were well-received and accomplished greatly.
No comments:
Post a Comment