Questioning the Traditional Lesson Structure

With the adoption of New York State Science Learning Standards (NYSSLS), there has been a variety of approaches taken to start blending its three dimensional structure, composed of core ideas, cross cutting concepts and science and engineering practices, into teachers current practice. The disciplinary core ideas are essentially the content that teachers will teach or what information their students are required to know. The cross cutting concepts are the key themes that emerge time and again across science curricula, such as patterns and cause and effect, and are used to explain how students think about science. The science and engineering practices are how teachers will teach the information and what students will actually do in the classroom. The science and engineering practices listed in the NGSS framework include: asking questions, developing and using models, planning and carrying out investigations, analyzing and interpreting data, using mathematics and computational thinking, constructing explanations and designing solutions, engaging in argument from evidence and lastly obtaining, evaluating and communicating information.

If you are feeling overwhelmed with the new standards, one place to start your shift could be to merge one the science and engineering practices into your current teaching flow. A smooth transition could be found by incorporating the first science and engineering practice: asking questions. The most common professional development technique I’ve encountered regarding this practice is Question Formulation Technique, QFT. QFT was developed by the Right Questions Institute, tested and modified to intentionally teach students how to ask questions and provide teachers with the skills necessary to teach the students how to do so. Essentially, QFT is a series of steps that allows for students to ask numerous questions, improve them and prioritize them in order of importance.

QFT begins with a question focus chosen by the teacher, typically something students will look at and be curious about, stimulating them to ask questions. The question focus can be a short video, a visual model that students can look at or even a short statement. The question focus itself is not a question and has a focused intention of jumpstarting student questions in a direction that provokes student thought in a different vein that the traditional approach likely would not. For instance, if teachers were using a short video to introduce nuclear chemistry by showing a slow-motion clip of an atomic bomb detonating instead of a clip discussing the historical impact of the atomic bomb, then the conversation would be better able to focus on solely on the chemistry of the explosion rather than its historical, political or emotional implications. Further, while typical lessons might begin with a “Do Now” from a teacher, the question focus is a different approach that will allow students to develop their own questions to guide the following lessons.

The second step of QFT, is a protocol that must be followed where students produce as many questions as they can without stopping for a discussion, judgement or even answer to their questions. Questions are recorded exactly as they are stated and any statements listed are changed into questions. So often, teachers want to re-phrase student questions: “So what you’re really asking is…” while here the intention is the students’ questions will be validated, no matter how they are articulated. All student input is valued in this method and is a student-centered as opposed to teacher centered approach. Additionally, the teacher needs to stress the importance of following the rules. For instance, groups cannot stop to debate or discuss a question, the rationale for this being that they will lose focus and not be able to continue to generate questions.

The next phase of QFT calls for students to classify their questions as closed versus open by labeling them as “C” for closed ended and “O” for open ended. Closed ended questions are those that can be answered with a “yes” or “no” response such as: “is the balloon inflated?” as opposed to an open-ended question which could be: “what caused the balloon to inflate?”. Students are then asked to change a closed ended question to open ended and vice versa if desired in order to show how manipulation of a question allows for different information to be obtained in order to arrive at an answer. Finally, students prioritize questions in order of importance. Typically, teachers ask for students’ top three questions which, depending on the question set, will shape future assignments. As an example: if the class was going to proceed in developing an experiment from the question focus, this could be how students prioritize information, such as asking students to pick which questions would be appropriate to investigate or three questions to which they would most like to know the answer. This exercise is one where students need to analyze, compare and determine which of the questions posed would best yield the information they want to obtain.  This can be concluded by students reporting out priority questions along with a rationale for why they chose those questions. Finally, the technique ends with a reflection where students analyze their thinking in the QFT process and what they learned individually.

        Professional development is important for teachers to grow and develop new pedagogical techniques. I was first introduced to this technique last spring at a workshop where the presenter showed a YouTube clip of a tidal wave. Working in groups my colleagues and I were asked to come up with as many questions as possible about the video we observed (without judgement of the questions). The instructions were to begin each question with the statement “I wonder…” or “I notice…” as the video played on the smartboard over and over.   This was followed by us indicating if the questions were open (providing multiple answers) or closed ended questions (yes/no type responses) for each one and finally which one we could conduct an investigation about and to determine what the variables would be for that particular investigation. Similarly, at a recent department meeting, my director showed four clips on a loop and we had to choose one of the images to generate questions about. The images for this sort of activity can be obtained from YouTube clips or https://www.ngssphenomena.com/. Together, the group developed questions over a three- minute period, which felt long and grew increasingly difficult. The questions were categorized as open or closed and the closed ended questions were re-phrased to become open ended questions. The group questions were written on chart paper and prioritized into the top three the group would like to investigate.

This past month, I used QFT with my students on a unit discussing gas laws. The question focus was a demonstration in which a balloon animal was placed in liquid nitrogen. Students observed the balloon shrink and then the balloon was taken out and returned to its original configuration, a variation of which is shown here. The students then were led through the QFT technique. Some of the questions derived included: “what is the relationship between temperature and pressure?”, “what affects volume more temperature or pressure?”, “what causes balloons to expand and contract?”,” how would the shape change if it were a different gas?”, “what would happen if there were more molecules in the balloon from the beginning of the experiment?”. All of these were ideas which I typically would have used to drive discussion or generate lessons from. Here, the students generated the questions and took ownership of the lesson flow as I illustrated the ways in which the students’ questions were related to the aim of that particular lesson. The same content was taught, but the order they were presented in was slightly different to address the students’ questions as the lesson aim.

        In summary, QFT is a protocol where students generate their own questions, improve upon them and prioritize them. My own personal reflection is that whenever I have tried this technique, the participants are all involved in the process and engaged for the entire duration of time. For my quieter students, I am continually impressed by their confidence in asking questions. I found throughout my unit of instruction, there was greater interest and comprehension of the topics. Moreover, in my after-school department meeting, my colleagues all participated and were curious about each other’s questions. Even after the meeting, we were talking about the clips, which is definitely not the case for all department meetings. Finally, the protocol is well tested in a variety of educational settings and across diverse student groups. It’s a technique that I would recommend to new teachers as it may help with classroom management by providing students with rules and steps to follow at each point of the process.  

For more information about QFT, visit the Right Institute for resources. Additionally, there is a great resource written by Dan Rothstein and Luz Santana called Make Just One Change that thoroughly describes the technique and provides much insight into how to incorporate into professional practice.

Resources:

Rothstein, D. & Luz, S. (2011). Make Just One Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education

Press.

https://www.nextgenscience.org/three-dimensions

http://rightquestion.org/education/

 

Deeper Dive into NYSSLS

Note:  Check out more pictures from this event here.

This past week, STANYS and the New York State Master Teacher Program co-sponsored  professional development workshops in three regions in New York State. The first of its kind model, allowed for teachers from across the state to experience the same two-day workshop. The consistency of the professional development was helpful as New York teachers came together to start to build a collection of lessons and ideas using a common understanding and template.  Key to any professional development is the quality of the presenter. Luckily, for New York, Paul Andersen, who has created countless videos on the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and has led teacher training sessions all over the world was on hand to provide a deeper dive into New York State Science Learning Standards (NYSSLS).

The workshop began with “The Wonder Tube”. During this exercise, teachers wore their “student hats” to experience firsthand modeling instruction from the other side of the desk. Teachers were provided with a demonstration of the Wonder Tube and individually developed a model for what they perceived to be the mechanism by the which the tube functioned. Key to utilizing phenomena such as this is that students are not able to google the answer and find out how it works. Participants individually drew what they believed the model to be, followed by group questioning of each individual’s model to understand what that person was thinking when they made that model. Teachers had a hard time with this task, wanting to state what they thought was happening. The pedagogical shift calls for group members to come to a consensus through the constant questioning of individual group members regarding their model, with no one group member simply telling “the answer”.  Models were presented, and the audience was given the opportunity to ask questions.  Amazingly,  no two models were the same. Paul asked the entire group to find similarities and differences within the models.  Modeling instruction is one vehicle by which teachers can begin to incorporate science practices into our classrooms. For more support with modeling, the American Modeling Teachers Association runs workshops to assist teachers.

Another teaching tool introduced by Paul called Question Formulation Technique calls for students to generate a list of questions surrounding an observable event; a phenomena. To do this participants observed termites following black lines that created the pattern of Olympic rings. Participants then brainstormed as many questions they could about the regarding the behavior of the termites they had just witnessed for five minutes. This was followed by labeling the questions as open or closed and determining which open ended question the group should investigate. The technique is easily applicable to teachers who would would like to try a NYSSLS aligned student driven inquiry approach.

Another means of rolling out NYSSLS to the participants was the Claim, Evidence, Reasoning (CER) framework, which focuses on the conclusion component of a laboratory report. After the students have completed the experiment, in essence collected their evidence, they are ready to make a claim. The teachers had the opportunity to experience this framework by investigating the question: “Are skew dice fair?” Groups then created large posters with their claim as well as a display of the supporting evidence via words, tables and graphs, followed by the reasoning which included scientific principles surrounding the experiment. Posters were stuck to the wall and shared with others through  a gallery walk and critique with post-its by other groups. Paul also provided his inquiry lab format as a resource to assist teachers in NYSSLS implementation via CER. This starts with an explanatory model, students then sort the variables in order of importance, after which comes data collection, a graphical representation and then the exercise concludes with the CER framework.  

When starting the workshop, Paul asked for what the teachers wanted to get out of the professional development and on the second day, he came back to address the topics that were of greatest interest to the attendees. One such NYSSLS concern was how to incorporate engineering design in your classroom by first defining criteria, followed by developing a solution and then refinement of that solution. Anderson suggested an activity that gave the participants the task to make a tower as tall as possible with only two pieces of computer paper, 10 cm of tape and five minutes. All participants were engaged as the clock displayed in the front of the room counted down the time. All groups frantically rushed  and at the end Paul claimed that was just the prototype and now participants were given the same task after observing what other groups had done to engineer the actual tallest tower. The activity could be utilized in any STEM classroom and adapted to a variety of tasks.  

Teachers are eager to learn about what assessments will look like with the new standards. There are a variety of resources available to help teachers get started. Paul recommends starting by printing out  cards with practices and crosscutting concepts to help generate ideas for student assessments. On the second day of the workshop, teachers of the same content area worked to create an assessment aligned to one specific performance expectation. By laying out the cards on the table, teachers were able to unpack the the practices and cross-cutting idea that could be used to assess the particular disciplinary core idea. Large posters of assessments were created and hung on the walls. Groups then gallery walked and gave feedback with post-its to improve the questions which were photographed and collected in a google drive to serve as a resource as teachers present go out and turn-key aspects to their colleagues. For additional resources on assessments, Paul suggested looking into ngss.nsta.org and nextgenscienceassessment.org for NGSS bundles and storylines for example assessments.

If one thinks of the level of comfort of the new standards, there is still much growth for all parties involved. Paul discussed how the implementation of any new teaching methodologies have an initial dip prior to rise is success rate and the same should be expected as teachers start to incorporate the NYSSLS approach. The workshop concluded with groups of the same discipline creating lessons using a common template.

Are you interested in diving even deeper? Then consider joining your fellow STANYS members at our state conference this November 4th- 6th in Rochester, where teachers will have the opportunity to learn more through a more extended content specific teacher institutes. Additionally, on the Monday of the conference, Paul Andersen is slotted to provide further workshops on NYSSLS. If you are unable to travel to Rochester please consider attending the Suffolk STANYS Fall Conference, which will be held on October 16th at Hofstra University where there will be more opportunities to learn about some of the NGSS best practices through modeling and questioning workshops.

Photo 3.jpg
Attendees work together to create NYSSLS assessments.
photo5.jpg
More attendees having an (obvious) good time!
photo 2.jpg
Teachers utilize Paul’s cards for science practices and crosscutting concepts to design assessments.
photo 4.jpg
Paul provides feedback on teacher created assessments.