Week 4 Reflection: Using Online Data and Generating an Argument

Using Online Data:

Chapter 6 of our textbook has encouraged me to use online data in my biology classes.  I have never really done so, at least not to that extent.  The text makes a good point that online data sets “extend the possibilities of inquiry beyond the limitations and constraints of available equipment and geographical locations.”  I think this is particularly true in biology since labs involving living things are quite restricted.  I was happy to read that research shows all levels of students “increased their science content knowledge and improved their inquiry performance” because this is a major concern of mine.  I still think it is valuable for students to generate their own data in the laboratory, but I recognize the benefits of using online data sets as well.  Each type of lab experience has its own advantages and I would think a course that utilizes a combination would be “the best of both worlds.”

I was not aware prior to reading the text that there were so many data sets available for teachers and students to use.  I appreciate the list of websites in the Life Science section at the end of the chapter.  They will be a great place to start!  I also found the Guidelines for Best Practice helpful.  Some of the topics I found particularly suitable for my students to analyze are migratory routes, tap water, population trends, and water monitoring.

I looked at some of the online data sets linked to the wiki.  The Atlas of the Biosphere maps and data sets through iteachSTEM would be excellent resources.  I especially liked the Human Impacts and Ecosystems sets. 

Generate an Argument instructional model:

I can definitely see the value in the Sampson and Grooms model to support scientific argumentation.  I agree that it is important for students to learn to think more like scientists and this model does a great job of encouraging that.  The four steps flow logically from one to the next and students are held accountable for their progress, both as groups (steps 2 and 3) and as individuals (step 4).

Putting this model into practice by designing my own classroom activity will be challenging, not only because it seems like it will take a long time to do so, but also because I might have to modify it to make it less daunting for many of my students who are very concrete learners.  I am curious to know if any research has been done concerning using this model with different levels of students.  I do think that this model will be easier for students of any level to follow than the Argument-Driven Inquiry model since the data is already provided for them.  The other concern I have is the amount of class time it will require for full implementation, especially as this same procedure should be used often to allow students to improve on these scientific and communicative skills.  I might be able to spend the time in one of my courses since I am the only teacher of that course, but in the other course I teach I am restricted by a curriculum and schedule that all the teachers of that course must follow.

I like the "Backward Faded Scaffolding" approach mentioned in the wiki.  I can envision designing the first lab experience of this method using the Generate an Argument model and then gradually leading the students through less teacher-centered and more student-centered activities.  I would think this tactic would make the students feel more comfortable as they participate in what might be their first inquiry-based course.