To demonstrate the application of improved knowledge of educational theory in the design of teaching materials or lessons used in my own classroom.
Baseline Reflection
As baseline evidence, I present the lesson plan I used for teaching molecular shape last year. It simply defines the concept. I ask students as part of their homework to outline pages from the textbook. The goal of that homework was to get students to come to class with a little background knowledge. Students will often come to class asking questions about what they read. I liked that the students come to class engaged, but my lesson failed to develop a functional understanding, make connections among concepts, and improve my students' reasoning ability.
Growth Reflection
As mentioned in Rubric 7, my first experience with POGILs was in Chem. 501 (2007) with Dr. Roberts. We had a seminar (see PowerPoint presentation) on how to design a POGIL. I learned ways to more effectively promote student learning and that knowledge cannot be transferred "intact" to the learner. Rather, Piaget developed the idea that knowledge is reconstructed in the mind of the learner through experiences they encounter. In addition, we were given practice time to evaluate several POGILs.
It wasn’t until this year that I started putting together my own POGILs. I mentioned in my action research paper that POGIL and traditional chalk and talk methods of teaching should go hand in hand to help students transition from passive learners to active participants in their own learning.
In Ed. 536, I read Designing Process-Oriented Guided-Inquiry Activities by David M. Hanson. I learned that in order to help students become better learners, it is essential to recognize the two educational components: the content and the process.
A POGIL learning activity engages students and prompts them to restructure information and knowledge. The literature I read taught me that POGILs utilize a learning cycle. This learning cycle consists of three stages: exploration, concept invention or formation, and application (Abraham). The purpose of a POGIL is described in why and how questions. Then it is followed by the learning objectives and success criteria. The learning objectives describe what the student is expected to learn. The success criteria measure what the students should be able to do at the end of the POGIL.
Information processing, critical and analytical thinking, problem solving, teamwork, and even metacognition are important skills to master chemistry concepts. In constructing my POGIL activities, the goal is to engage students in the learning process which leads to the conceptual understanding of the material and to develop the skills mentioned above.
In the exploration phase of the learning cycle, students develop their understanding of a concept by responding to a series of key questions. Those key questions should unlock the information presented in the POGIL and reveal its significance. They should guide the learners to discover the relevant concepts.
In concept invention or concept formation phase, students are effectively guided and encouraged to explore, draw conclusions, and then to make predictions. Once the concept is identified and understood, it is reinforced and extended in the application phase. The new knowledge is then applied in simple exercises that build confidence. At the end, it is applied to higher level applications that require synthesis of ideas (Hanson & Brook 2005).
In summary, I am trying to show how my experience with POGILs evolved. I started in my baseline with a teacher-centered lesson. Below, I describe two student-centered POGILs which I constructed and used in my own classroom.
Evidence #1: Original Molecular Shape POGIL
I constructed a molecular shape POGIL. The orientation for this POGIL starts with a question: How can you determine the shape of a molecule? This sets the stage for the concept to be learned; students explore the information given about bonding and non-bonding electrons. Students are expected to learn about bonding pairs, lone pairs, and bond angles. By the end of this activity, students should be able to differentiate between bonding electrons and nonbonding electrons. They should also be able to determine the bond angle if they are given the number of bonding pairs and the number of lone pairs. Certainly Lewis dot structures are prerequisites for this POGIL. Students learn about Lewis dot structures during the previous lesson. This new knowledge is then applied in simple exercises to build confidence and to increase the application level. Critical thinking questions guide the students to discover how bonding pairs differ from the lone pairs which are not involved in bonding and occupy more space than the bonding domain. This is demonstrated in question five when asked to compare and draw the predicted structure of ammonia. Furthermore, the students were asked in later questions to explain the similarity between bonding angles in ammonia, water, and methane. By the end of this POGIL, students should be able to apply the effects of both the bonding pairs and non-bonding pairs on the geometrical shape of the molecule.
Molecular shape POGIL
I mentioned earlier how essential it is to recognize two educational components: the content and the process. The lesson plan submitted above as baseline evidence simply tells/explains to the students the content of the material by defining them. The POGIL above was used to reinforce what was told and explained to the students in class. So in comparing between before/later evidences, I transitioned from chalk-and-talk teaching to using a POGIL. This insured students were a part of an interactive class. They developed greater ownership over the material and more comprehension of the subject. They also enjoyed knowing that there was constant and instant feedback about what they understood and misunderstood. In discussing the effectiveness of the POGIL above with my colleague Doug Balmer, many issues were raised. First, I mentioned above that during the exploration phase of the learning cycle students should develop their understanding of a concept by responding to a series of key questions. Yet looking at the box of information given in my POGIL, there are definitions given just like what I have in my baseline lesson plan. There was no inquiry involved, and there wasn't any difference between the given information and the information from my original lesson plan. Second, the first four questions were not really critical thinking questions; they were more exploration questions leading to concept invention and formation. Students should first develop their understanding of the concept by responding to a series of key questions that guide them to construct and discover the concept before starting the application phase including critical thinking questions. And finally, I do not see where I could have set up my student to know the difference between the actual and predicted geometry of molecules as required in question seven. It sounds like I asked my students to be pianists by just watching someone else play! In the later evidence #2 below, growth is demonstrated through the revised version of my first POGIL. It betters meets the learning cycle goals of POGIL.
Evidence #2: Revised Molecular Shape POGIL
The POGIL below is the revised version of the POGIL above. It demonstrates the growth I experienced in designing this teaching material. In the new POGIL, the orientation still starts with the question: How can you determine the shape of a molecule? But definitions are not given in the information box; instead, there are more elaborations on the Lewis dot structures provided. Students learned about Lewis dot structures during the previous lesson. The exploration phase starts with direct questions that require the students to process and recall information. These questions have a definite answer that can be found in the POGIL itself or from prior knowledge. They force the students to make connections and reveal the significance of the concept. Next, the concept is reinforced and extended to the application phase. This phase starts with the critical thinking questions. Students here are effectively guided and encouraged to draw conclusions, and then to make predictions showing functional understanding. I paid special attention in creating those critical thinking questions, because they are the heart of guided inquiry learning (Hanson 2005). I needed a variety of direct, convergent, and divergent questions to be effective, both time-wise and content-wise. Convergent questions require students to make connections and reach for subtle conclusions. They require analysis in driving students to develop and understand the concept. Divergent questions require a higher level of thinking, because they may have no right or wrong answers. They are more open ended (Hanson 2006).
The first two critical thinking questions in the revised POGIL are direct questions. I asked students to apply what they learned so far using different elements and molecules. Critical thinking questions three and four ask students to think deeply about the given information, because they have to describe what they learned in their own words. Students collaborating with each other in a group help to apply their reasoning and intuition until they come up with satisfactory definitions of lone pairs and bonding pairs of electrons. The POGIL's critical thinking questions help the students digest the concept more effectively, deepen their understanding, and enhance their problem solving skills. Now I am more comfortable asking questions that require analysis and higher levels of thinking. Critical thinking questions five and six ask students to compare given and actual values of bond angles between atoms. Questions seven and eight get students to compare given and predicted shapes of molecules. Question nine asks why ammonia, water and methane have approximately the same bond angles. This leads them to proficiently answering more convergent questions like those in questions eleven and twelve.
Reflections after the implementation of the POGIL activity in class:
1. I noticed that exploring the key questions unlocked the information that is present in the POGIL. Students were involved in revealing its significance and discovering the relevant concepts while developing an understanding of the concepts.
2. In applying POGILs in my classroom, I noticed that the variety in those questions raised a challenge among the groups and the competition in getting the right answers. My goal from this is to make my students ponder, explore, generalize, and expand upon their current knowledge.
3. Discussions among group members produced different perspectives regarding a concept and its use in solving problems and correcting misconceptions.
4. I also noticed that individual students can complete the POGIL by themselves, yet it was most effective when used or completed by students working in learning teams of three or four with me as a guide. It seems that they learn the most and have the most fun if working with each other.
5. Students asked if they could use the textbook. My answer was to use the textbook or other references only to resolve disagreements or to see examples of problem solutions. It is more important for the students to go back to the given information and think critically about it. If I give them enough given information, and ask the right questions, students shouldn't need to consult a textbook.
References
Abraham, M. R. (2005). Inquiry and the learning cycle approach. In N. J. Pienta, M. M. Cooper, & T. J. Greenbowe (Eds.), Chemists' guide to effective
teaching (pp. 41-52). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
David M. Hanson, Stony Brook University and Richard S. Moog, Franklin and Marshall College. http://www.pcrest.com/PC/pub/POGIL.htm.
Hanson, D., (2005). Designing Process Oriented Guided Inquiry activities, Stony Brook University. 11974-3400
Hanson, D. M. (2006). Instructor's guide to process-oriented guided-inquiry learning. Lisle, IL: Pacific Crest.