Lunch time musings
1) A network for the school that allows a freer flow of documents. (How to utilize/monitor)
2) Inquiry Projects: why has it deviated so far? Teacher's complain that students do not want to do it, but maybe teachers are not presenting it well. Can "original" intent be regained? What about math and science? Students meet with all teachers to discuss.
What is Inquiry? (Can find some information in EMHS Charter on EMHS website. Do a web search on Inquiry learning.) Do you have to have a conclusion? Why does discussion not count in the presentation.
Project: Eliminate paper? Is a paper necessary for a "good" presentation? Shouldn't students have more freedom in the presentation - less rubric-ess?
Open up the audience minds about subject; wouldn't a seminar be a good method. Research only "goes so far". Should the presentation require audience participation? It would help audience invest in the topic.
Whole Inquiry days?
Guidelines are necessary and students should be able to take it and run with it. At present, guidelines are too limited?
How can students be inspired to do inquiry? Spread an attitude.
Is the dislike of inquiry perpetuated by upper-classmen? There has not been a lot of change in four years. There is no way to get 100% buy-in. Shouldn't students realize what they are getting into by coming to EMHS?
Not all students wanted to come here - they were forced.
It would be helpful for advocates to go over what EMHS is all about. Share the goals and methods of conrnerstones.
Where was the inspiration lost? Students need the freedom to find something they are truly passionate about. What are the implications of a student (or students) who wait until the last minute? Maybe one of the biggest problems is that students cannot pick questions.
(By the way, I only acted as a "transcriber" and did my best, as an adult and teacher, not to misrpresent the thoughts of the students.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Vierra (the humble servant of all that is good in the world) once again doing what any student could do:
The grading of inquiry projects is frustrating because teachers are inconsistent.
For years, we've discussed Inquiry in the Humanities department, as somehow this has become a Humanities project, rather than a school wide project, as the Charter suggests. If it has "deviated" as is suggested in this blog, it has been through multiple discussions and requests for feedback from the school community, including a variety of individuals saying "That's a Humanities project, I don't want anything to do with it". If, by deviation, one means "moves away from the path", then I disagree wholeheartedly.
In the past, when there have been teachers brave enough to stand up and say, "let's get to it" with a plan, a model, a format to make it what it "should" be, they have frequently been abused and the material they worked on, ignored. As a teacher of these projects, I find it difficult to believe that “inspiration has been lost". It is up to the individual to find inspiration in an Inquiry topic and make that topic an important piece of that individual. Through multiple discussions with peers, family, teachers and staff, students should be able to find that inspiration. One Humanities teacher cannot do it alone, and most would agree, but most are not jumping up and down to help, either.
As a Humanities teacher, I am, and probably obviously, "bought in" to the way we do inquiry. It is a possibility that kids don't buy in to the presentation themselves because of the way someone presents it to them, but as teachers, we all have our own individual styles and flavors, and you cannot suggest that we should try to remove that. As students, isn't it the responsibility as a learner to take what they may? If that is the case, isn't it imperative that inquiry become a piece of the researcher? Why is the discussion of a paper's necessity even relevant? As part of a researcher's role, he/she should be able to articulate his/her ideas and understandings in writing as well as in a presentation. It is not an either/or situation. We are trying to graduate a group of strong, unique, individual citizens, and the ability to articulate in writing is a 21st century trait that cannot be avoided. The Charter states, “EMHS graduates will be skilled in the use of language to listen to and communicate ideas...The school’s inquiry-based curriculum is based on a liberal arts model and designed to help every student develop a pool of knowledge and competencies embracing the arts, humanities, foreign language, mathematics, social sciences and natural sciences, while learning to think critically and articulate thoughts clearly” (Executive Summary 1).
I share the frustration that so many people percieve inquiry as a "humanities thing".
I think it is important to recognize that the comments I transcribed from the students' discussion are the reality that they are experiencing. I would like to see the students taking more initiative in looking into inquiry as a method of learning and presentation skills as a method of sharing.
Inquiry, in and of itself, has become a bit of an inquiry.
I feel as a student, that the research paper is not a highly favored, or effective way of "proving" that a student is participating whole-heartedly in the project. Personally, my inquiry papers have been muddled, and the one this year seemed down-right awful, but my presentation was a huge success.
It almost seems contradictory to me, because the whole point of the inquiry process is to learn and delvelope over a period of time, even including the day of a presentation. Because these research papers are due several days before the project, essentially what you are doing is taking a freeze-frame of one praticular moment in your entire learning process.
I feel that the MOST helpful and encouraging thing to do for both students and staff is to have days where we work on inquiry, and groups OUTSIDE of humanities, (similar to the discovery orginization I suppose) and in these groups/on these days, not just do "research" but have group discussions and input about every student's question. Through these discussions I think that many connections can be formed between students and their outside resources.
Also, I have compiled a list of the opinions not only gathered today, but in seperate discussions about inquiry. Some "reformations" if you will:
-Promoting Inquiry to the community, so that they can provide mentors, and resources.
- Having an uplifting and passionate view of inquiry and sharing it with the teachers.
- Allowing discussion to be part of the time, and not having a maximum time.
- Having inquiry DAYS.
- Having inquiry groups (as in the teachers each have their specific groups and they all talk and work together to develop all of the questions)
- A de-briefing of the teachers role in helping their students with inquiry.
I agree with much of what was said about it being the Student's responsibility to make the project their own. The problem with inquiry, to me, is how much it has become a punitive, point-driven system, that usually tries to grade a student on very odd pieces of the process. As many people have said, most people do not use the note cards, nor the research paper. I do think that, with the charter in mind, the research paper is highly important. I also agree with Marguax, in that it is usually placed at a bad time. Perhaps if it were modified somewhat to be more of a reflection of the process, due after everything? I think that this would be the ideal, allowing a student to document their entire experience, including the presentation. In fact, this is how my Junior Inquiry was done.
As far as discussion, time, and the other parts of the rubric go, I am not so sure. I believe that these requirements are too strict, but I also wonder at the alternatives. Without note cards, how can you gauge a student's progress, or help them along? Without the rubric, how can you determine if a student spent any time or effort on their project? I am not sure there is a simple answer to these kind of questions.
It seems that we all agree that there's room for growth in our Inquiry Projects. Isn't that the point? To quote ekuehne: "As a teacher of these projects, I find it difficult to believe that “inspiration has been lost"." I too find that difficult to believe. The first time I graded Discovery projects was May of 2007. My first thought was, "Kids are expected to sit through HOW MANY of these?!" I was incredulous that EMHS would devote two days to watching presentations. I was also pretty upset at having to give up 2days of instructional time. But as I graded these presentations, as I watched students articulate themselves, and as I observed the responses of the audience, I was blown away. Students were polite & respectful. Most of them were supportive of their peers, and they actually paid attention to the presentations! Most impressive was the level of questioning. Kids were actually THINKING! For me, this was a keen introduction to the unique culture at EMHS. I taught at 3 APS schools before coming here, and the idea of such a large group of kids being polite, respectful, and attentive enough to ask quality questions was unfathomable!
I have seen the same behaviors during presentations this school year. A large majority of students actually look forward to watching these presentations. In discussing projects with students, I have found that they actually learn from these presentations. I think that there's something to be said for these attitudes. I'm not naive enough to believe that this is a school-wide attitude--because I'm aware of those who don't like inquiry and who are unmotivated by the process. But I am an eternal optimist and I see so many possibilities.
This year, I have tried hard to play an active role in helping my Advocates create good presentations. We have discussed several aspects of the project during Advocacy. I agree with marguax lopez's suggestion: "...in these groups/on these days, not just do "research" but have group discussions and input about every student's question..." My Advocates have also found this helpful. This week, we are doing 'practice runs' of Inquiry Presentations during Advocacy. I look forward to watching these kids grow and mature, and I embrace my role in the Inquiry Process--whatever that role may evolve into.
Having only taught here for two years, I was surprised to find out that Inquiry has changed each year since its introduction. Personally, I think that puts us at a crucial juncture especially since the gradual short term change seems to have amounted to a larger overall change over time. Is the process fundamentally solid enough to work with? Do we need to rethink the entire idea? Which parts do we want to commit to for a while? Throw out?
I do think that Humanities has done a good job accepting the responsibility for the projects. I do wonder, however, if the move away from a school-wide approach was a wise decision.
Lastly, I think Inquiry would be much more powerful, easier for the students to engage in and a better representation of the charter in action if it was treated as a cyclical rather than linear process. No student should be expected to begin Inquiry with a solid question. Shouldn't the learning process itself help the students understand how to recognize a question as too narrow or broad? Looking at the process as cyclical and allowing students to continually review and rewrite their question as they research will not only allow them to learn the process but it will demonstrate what we mean by life long learner. Imagine a student presenting on a topic and talking about how she plans to continue examining her topic even after the “official” school requirement is completed.
Post a Comment