Inquiry as a teaching and learning strategy is fundamental and deeply embedded within the content and teaching standards of science education (National Research Council 2000). Inquiry-based teaching and learning strategies guide students to explore and actively learn about the world around them. Now that No Child Left Behind is focusing on science education, it is crucial for science teachers to not only motivate this intellectual curiosity in their students through inquiry but for their students to demonstrate higher levels of understanding.

How can library media specialists play an active role in promoting and improving science learning? There has been little written about collaboration between teacher-librarians and science educators, and Mardis and Abilock each discovered that fewer than five percent of articles published between 1998 and 2003 were devoted to any aspect of working with science teachers or students (Mardis 2007; Abilock 2003; Mardis 2006).

Collaboration in science education has, therefore, become my challenge as a library media specialist in a suburban high school in Hawaii. This article is about how Judi Morton, a chemistry teacher, and I collaborated on science projects using an inquiry approach with approximately a hundred students in four general chemistry classes.

Inquiry and Science

Research shows that strong parallels exist between how students learn important science concepts and the processes of scientific inquiry that are used in inquiry-based classrooms (NRC 2000). Inquiry moves away from activities and tasks at the recall and simple comprehension levels to projects requiring the application of concepts and the synthesis, interpretation, and evaluation of information and ideas (Harada and Yoshina 2004). The following elements of inquiry emphasize what Wagner refers to as the 3 Rs that are essential for effective learning, i.e., rigor, relevance, and relationships (1997). They also reflect the major tenets of the Standards for the 21st-Century Learner (AASL 2007).

• Questioning is at the heart of the learning experience. The nature and quality of the question is equally as important as the answer. While fact-inducing questions are essential for eliciting basic information, questions that ask “what if,” “why,” “what else,” and “who says this” provoke critical thought.
• Learning is social and interactive. Students work in peer groups; information from community resources.
• Choice is crucial for students to feel ownership of the learning experience. Within the parameters of the assignment, students should be able to negotiate what is being learned and how learning will be demonstrated.
• Solving problems is an integral part of the process. Critical questions that might be confronted are: Why is this important? Why is this happening? What can I do?
• Students learn by doing. This is not referring to mindless physical tasks but “doing” that also requires rigorous intellectual engagement. The learning is both hands on and minds on (Costa and Kallick 1999).
• Learning is authentic and relates to students’ personal lives. Quite often, the themes or issues are connected to larger social issues.
• Assessment is continuous and focuses on students participating in self-assessment that leads to empowering decisions about how to improve performance.

Designing for Inquiry-Based Learning

The catalyst for this collaborative initiative was a summer institute on inquiry-based learning. The benefits of an inquiry approach to learning were probed with the institute leaders and other participants. Instructional participants. Instructional partners also planned an inquiry-based unit.

Making the learning relevant. Judi have mentors or seek information wanted her students to connect what they were learning in the classroom to their personal lives. She also wanted them to work in teams and exchange peer feedback. To accomplish these goals, we decided to have students (1) explore the chemistry behind everyday objects, and (2) connect these concepts to an explication of how these objects have improved their quality of life. We agreed that allowing choice was critical.

Linking to standards. One of our first tasks was to identify the content standards that would serve as the overarching concepts for the study. We identified two standards: the nature of matter and the relationship between science, technology, and society.

Starting with the end in mind. We had learned about the importance of using an outcome-based model of instructional design at the summer institute on inquiry-based learning (Wiggins and McTighe 1998). What did we hope students would be able to demonstrate by the end of the project? Starting with the end in mind was a new way of designing instruction for us. We devised a checklist (Figure 1) that described the goals as “I can” statements for the students and also served as a pre-assessment tool.

Key Activities Implemented

Our collaborative planning efforts continued after we returned from the institute. We refined our unit’s essential question and designed lessons and activities to stimulate curiosity and invite differentiated paths of investigation. Once we thought that the attributes of inquiry-focused teaching and learning were incorporated, we were ready for implementation.

Hooking interest. We launched the unit as a team-taught lesson. Judi showed a film clip from The Wizard of Oz as an introduction to our foundational question, “What are things made of?” I then led a class discussion focused on the Tin Man’s composition and used a K-W-L chart to visually connect our prior knowledge. Students then partnered with colleagues and brainstormed everyday objects and/or products they might research. To help them get started, Judi and I shared tangible examples, e.g., Lactaid, Windex, and Beefier. Once students selected their objects, they started work on their K-W-L charts.

Clarifying goals and outcomes. Following the introduction, we explained the details of the project (e.g., expectations and timeline) and provided students with a copy of the project’s poster rubric (Figure 2). Judi also shared clips from another video containing more examples of connections between chemistry and daily life.

Brainstorming questions. In the next lesson Judi explained a question web she had created using Inspiration to visually represent our essential and focus questions. Judi also encouraged students to revisit their K-W-L chart and add their own questions to the web.

Conducting the investigation. I taught lessons to help students find and use appropriate resources (e.g., online search strategies, Web evaluation, and documentation). I also created a note-taking sheet (Figure 3) and a Web site evaluation checklist (Figure 4) that were influenced by similar forms created by Harada and Yoshina (2005).

Critiquing and reflecting. It was critical for students to provide constructive feedback to other teams prior to the gallery walk. To do this, they used the poster rubric. We were pleased with the exchanges. Many groups used the suggestions and comments from the peer assessment to improve their work. At various points in the unit, students also kept logs that helped them think about what they were learning and how they were learning which provided us with important feedback.

Midpoint Adjustments

Midway through the project our plans changed when we realized that students did not have the background knowledge to address our project’s second standard regarding the relationship between science, technology, and society. We decided to address this standard in another inquiry project later in the year. Doing so gave us the opportunity to build on our first inquiry experience and try other ideas and strategies we had previously learned at the summer institute. Being able to reflect together as partners was essential to our understanding of the limitations of the first unit and the readiness levels of the students.

Scaffolding the learning experience. Our second inquiry project still focused on the relevancy of chemistry in people’s lives, but this time the human body was selected as the focus. Students researched a chemical that was produced and used in the human body (e.g., insulin, adrenalin) and shared their findings in a PowerPoint presentation.

Students once again chose their topics, but this time, they created their own research questions, designed their own question webs, and used these webs as working documents to track new questions and thoughts. My lessons targeted choosing and narrowing a topic and asking critical questions.

Using assessment to adjust teaching. The limitations of self-perception data became apparent when data from the checklist (Figure 1) were reviewed. For example, while students indicated they already knew how to use advanced search strategies, my observations contradicted their perceptions. As a result, I devised a K-W-L chart to find out what they actually knew.

Student feedback also helped guide our instruction in our second project. In their journals, students admitted that they tended to copy when they were unsure about a subject. Therefore, a lesson on plagiarism was included and students were encouraged to include more personal connections and experiences in their presentations.

Insights Gained

Inquiry-based approaches led to learning that was more fluent, meaningful, and relevant. As instructors, we made the following critical discoveries.

Importance of background knowledge. Inquiry is based on constructivist principles. By paying thoughtful attention to students’ prior understandings and gaps in content knowledge, we recognized that it was unrealistic to address both science standards in the first project and extended the work across two projects.

Impact of questions asked. Essential questions that frame the learning and capture the essence of a unit of study help students stay on track. We realized our need to conscientiously facilitate the questioning process rather than direct and tell.

Sharing control with students. We also realized that relinquishing control of the learning process was easier said than done. Students developed ownership for their projects when they selected their topic. At the same time, they were not ready to take full charge, e.g., determining goals, identifying critical tasks and appropriate resources, and devising feasible timelines for accomplishing the work. The sensible approach was to allow for greater student choice and voice in progressive steps.

Conclusion

Barbara Stripling states that “inquiry-based instruction that leads to student understanding is designed most powerfully when content and process specialists work together—a collaborative team of library media specialist and classroom teacher” (2007, 44). Mardis states that rather than working in “parallel universes,” science classrooms and libraries must be “mutually reinforcing” as schools move in the direction of data-driven decision-making and practice ( http://www.ala.org/ala/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/slmrb/slmrcontents/volume10/mardis_schoollibrariesandscience.cfm ). Our experiences confirm that by teaching and learning as curriculum partners, the teacher and library media specialist can integrate learning and motivational strategies to help students become more self-directed. We can assess and reflect together to co-create instruction that connects learning to personal levels of meaning.

Acknowledgments:

Thanks to Judi Morton, my teaching partner, and to Joan Yoshina and Violet Harada, who were the principal trainers for the summer institute on inquiry learning. I am also indebted to Violet Harada, who encouraged me to write this article and served as a valuable mentor and editor in the process.

References:

Abilock, Debbie. “Collaborating with Science Teachers.” Knowledge Quest 31, no. 3 (January/February 2003): 8-9.

American Association of School Librarians. Standards for the 21st-Century Learner. ALA, 2007. http://www.ala.org/ala/aasl/aaslprof-tools/learningstandards/standards.cfm (accessed November 22, 2007).

Costa, Arthur L., and Bena Kallick, eds. Discovering and Exploring Habits of Mind. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1999.

Harada, Violet H., and Joan M. Yoshina. Assessing Learning: Librarians and Teachers as Partners. Libraries Unlimited, 2005.

Harada, Violet H., and Joan M.Yoshina. Inquiry Learning through Librarian-Teacher Par tner-ships. Linworth, 2004.

Mardis, Marcia. “Science Teacher and School Library Media Specialist Roles: Mutually Reinforcing Perspectives as Defined by National Guidelines.” In Educational and Media Technology Yearbook, edited by M. Orey, V.J. McClendon, and R.M. Branch, 169-178. Libraries Unlimited, 2006.

Mardis, Marcia. “School Libraries and Science Achievement: A View from Michigan’s Middle Schools.” School Library Media Research 10 (2007). http://www.ala.org/ala/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/slmrb/slmrcontents/volume10/mardis_schoollibrariesandscience.cfm (accessed December 27, 2007).

National Research Council (NRC). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. National Academy Press, 2000.

Stripling, Barbara K. “Teaching for Understanding.” In School Reform and the School Library Media Specialist, edited by S. Hughes-Hassell and V. H. Harada, 37-55. Libraries Unlimited, 2007.

Wagner, Tony. Making the Grade: Reinventing America’s Schools. RoutledgeFalmer, 1997.

Wiggins, Grant, and Jay McTighe. Understanding by Design. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1998.