Assessing inquiry

177
ASSESSING
INQUIRY
Copyright © 2013 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

National Science Teachers Association178
The Changing
Landscape
of Assessment
By Richard A. Duschl
T
he times they are a changin’” Bob Dylan wrote in the 1960s. How very appropriate
is that sentiment today in science education. The National Research Council (NRC)
summary reports Taking Science to School (2007) and Ready, Set, Science! (2008)
informed us that we have underestimated the science abilities of K–8 children. Chil-
dren,evenbeforekindergarten,aremorecapablethanweeverthought—capablewhenaccessible
contexts are used and the classroom environment is geared toward the critique and communi-
cation of ideas and information. Surely, we have all noticed how a child’s motivation, interest,
and abilities can shift from one science topic to another. Our images of children need changing.
STEM policy reports like The Opportunity Equation (see Internet Resource) inform us of
the need to align curricula, instruction, and assessments and to do so around core standards
that are fewer, higher, and coherent. Our guidelines for selecting and sequencing what to teach
within and across grades need changing.
A Framework for K–12 Science Education (NRC 2012) is organized around the coordina-
tion of three domains: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The new Framework
forms the core of the Next Generation Science Standards. An additional charge is that the stan-
dards be linked to learning performances. How we assess, what we assess, and when we assess
need changing.
Assessing and evaluating science learning and the progression of learning is complex.
Learning to do so effectively will require collaborations with classroom teachers and science
educators like you. It is a complex problem. Sound classroom-level assessments by teachers
are what keep learning on track. New technologies (cell phones, handhelds) and new tools
(diagnostic assessment systems) provide teachers with information to guide learning and adapt
instruction. Research has long informed us that the best learning environments—be they class-
rooms, homes, museums, or day care centers—monitor and mediate learning. Giving quality
feedback on meaning-making and reasoning is what makes a great teacher. The research is tell-
ing us that teacher practices in regard to what is assessed and how it is assessed need changing.
CHAPTER 33

A Year of Inquiry 179
In science, one important domain is assessing inquiry—monitoring and giving feedback
on the knowledge meaning-making and the investigative and cognitive science practices that
comprise the essence of science (namely, using evidence for building and refining explanations,
models, and mechanisms). Although science involves doing investigations to obtain evidence,
science is so much more. Our images of inquiry frameworks need changing.
Learning science, as we well know, is not simply learning facts and knowledge claims.
Learning science is using facts and claims to pose, build, and refine explanatory models and
mechanisms. As such, assessing inquiry is the keystone to good science instruction. I (along
with others) have interpreted the essential features of inquiry (NRC 2000) as containing three
transformations in scientific inquiry (Duschl 2003):
• Data to evidence, or determining whether data are anomalous or count as valid
evidence;
• Evidence to patterns, or searching for patterns in and generating models for evi-
dence/data; and
• Patterns to explanations, or developing explanations on the basis of the evidence/
models selected.
Assessment of inquiry should focus on students making these transformations. Unpack-
ing these transformations brings us to the central role of scientific practices. What the inquiry
transformations signal is the need to make evidence problematic for students. Not something
given but rather something that is obtained, evaluated, wrestled with, argued over, applied,
represented, and communicated. What we want for children at all grade levels is to experiment
for reasons and to reason about experiments. Our images of doing science need to change.
Taking Science to School (NRC 2007) tells us we need to move from science processes to
science practices. Curriculum materials and instructional methods need to change from think-
ing about teaching general inquiry processes to thinking about teaching and having students
engage in specific science practices. This is what the four Strands of Science Proficiency in
Ready, Set, Science! (NRC 2008) are all about:
• Strand 1: Understanding Scientific Explanations—e.g., understand central concepts
and use them to build and critique scientific arguments;
• Strand 2: Generating Scientific Evidence—e.g., generating and evaluating evidence
as part of building and refining models and explanations of the natural world;
• Strand 3: Reflecting on Scientific Knowledge—e.g., understanding that doing science
entails searching for core explanations and the connections between them; and
• Strand 4: Participating Productively in Science—e.g., understand the appropriate
norms when presenting scientific arguments and evidence and to practice produc-
tive social interactions with peers around classroom science investigations.
So what does research tell us inquiry sounds like?
• Planning investigations for data is children deciding the selection of questions,
tools, schedules for observation, and units for measurement.
The Changing Landscape of AssessmentCHAPTER 33

Assessing Inquiry
• Data collection to evidence is children observing systematically, measuring accu-
rately, structuring data, and setting standards for quality control.
• Evidence to searching for patterns and building models is children construct-
ing and defending arguments, presenting evidence, engaging in mathematical
modeling, and using physical and computational tools.
• Patterns and models to generate explanations is the sound of children posing theo-
ries, building and reporting conceptual-based models, considering alternatives,
and generating new productive questions.
Fundamentally, assessing inquiry is all about making thinking visible through “Talk and
Argument” and through “Modeling and Representation,” Chapters 5 and 6, respectively in
Ready, Set, Science! (NRC 2008). Assessing science inquiry begins with teachers and students
learning how to listen for and respond to the core science practices involved with the critique
and communication of science claims. The set of research and policy reports are strong evi-
dence that we as teachers, science educators, and science education researchers have learned
how to learn about learning. The answer isn’t just “blowin’ in the wind,” now we have evidence!
References
Duschl, R. A. 2003. Assessment of Inquiry. In Everyday Assessment in the Science Classroom, eds. J.
M. Atkin and J. Coffey (pp. 41–59). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
National Research Council (NRC). 2012. A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, cross-
cutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council (NRC). 2000. Inquiry and the national science education standards: A
guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council (NRC). 2007. Taking science to school! Learning and teaching science in
grades K–8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council (NRC). 2008. Ready, set, science!: Putting research to work in K–8 sci-
ence classrooms. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Internet Resource
The Opportunity Equation
http://opportunityequation.org
CHAPTER 33

Feed Up, Feedback,
and Feed Forward
How One Teacher Assesses Her
Kindergarteners During a Unit on
Conservation
By Douglas Fisher and Nancy Frey
M
ention assessment and most people are likely to think about standardized tests and
other formal methods for measuring what students know. But traditional paper-
and-pencil tests inadequately describe what a child knows and still needs to learn
because they come too late in the learning cycle. Children have a deep curiosity
about the physical, biological, and social world, and they require an assessment system that
fits with this science inquiry. In other words, they need a formative assessment system that
feeds up, feeds back, and feeds forward. This assessment process, first described by Hattie and
Timperley (2007), focuses on the ongoing information that is transmitted between teacher
and student throughout the unit. Our experiences suggest that all three of these components
are necessary for assessments to be of value, and on the plus side, none of them interfere with
inquiry learning!
Feeding up establishes a substantive line of inquiry that compels learners to engage in
investigation and inquire. It also forms the basis for the assessments that follow. Once stu-
dents understand the purpose and begin to work, they receive feedback that is timely and
scaffolds their understanding. Based on their responses, the teacher gains a sense of what
learners know and do not know. These practices drive a feed forward system that informs the
teacher about what needs to be taught, or what students need to experience, next. Hattie and
Timperley (2007) described this as an “ideal learning environment or experience” that “occurs
when both teachers and students seek answers to each of these questions” (p. 8). The dynamic
nature of this inquiry-based assessment approach allows the teacher to make adjustments as
students gain knowledge and skills and respond in a timely fashion when their learning stalls.
On the following pages, we describe how a kindergarten science teacher used this inquiry-
based approach to assessment with her students during a unit on conservation of resources. She
found that this approach to assessment allowed her to make adjustments in instruction and
experiences as students needed them, rather than wait until the end of the unit. In addition,
CHAPTER 34

Assessing Inquiry
this formative assessment system complemented her inquiry approach and the information she
collected about student understanding did not interrupt her students’ investigation.
Feed Up: The Purpose of Assessment
Kindergarten teacher Debra Randall wanted to introduce her students to the principles of con-
servation using an essential question that would invite investigation and experimentation. In
preparation for this unit, the students had filled two clear glass jars with soil the previous month.
The soil in one jar covered a used plastic straw from one of the children’s juice boxes, whereas the
other covered an apple core from another child’s lunch. A month later, she introduced the essen-
tial question to her students: “Where does trash and garbage come from, and where does it go?”
Safety note: The teacher (not students) should unearth the materials in front of students.
Then place each item in a separate sealed plastic bag. This will prevent any exposure to poten-
tial microbes or fungi. Also have students wash their hands with soap and water once they are
done viewing and handling the bag.
This provided the children with an overarching purpose for their unit of study. Each daily
lesson included a statement of purpose that students used to guide their inquiry. For example,
the students were told that “the purpose of this lesson is for you to use your observational skills
to describe what you’re finding out about what happened to the plastic straw and the apple.
Each of you will draw what you’re seeing and talk about it with your team.” This purpose state-
ment was an important and effective instructional routine to support her student’s learning
(Hill and Flynn 2006). It also focused her formative assessment of the lesson because it made
clear how and what she would assess.
Ms. Randall distributed clipboards with observation sheets attached and then invited sev-
eral children at a time to observe the two items. As they studied the contents of the two jars,
the teacher modeled how she posed questions to herself. “I wonder how these two things have
changed,” she said, “and I’m thinking about what they looked like when we put them in the
jars last month.” As students returned to their tables to draw and discuss, she made notes on
the observation behaviors of each child, and wrote down some of their questions, as when
Araceli asked, “Why did the colored stripe on the straw change?”
Once all of the children had an opportunity to view the jars, Ms. Randall visited each table
to gather further information about their budding understanding of decomposition. All the
materials students had access to in this investigation decompose. However, the length of time
required for each material’s decomposition varied. The drawings each child completed gave
Ms. Randall further information about their learning. Although Xiomara’s drawing included
wavy lines indicating that the jar containing the apple had an odor, Jorge’s did not. Noticing
these differences allowed the teacher to consider student understanding and how to facilitate
additional learning experiences.
Ms. Randall was preparing students to construct and maintain a small composting heap
outside their classroom and continued to build their understanding through shared readings of
texts such as Recycle! (Gibbons 1996), Diary of a Worm (Cronin 2003), and Earthdance (Ryder
1999). At this time she introduced a simple rubric to her students based on “I can” statements
so that the children could use this language in their conversations with their teacher as they
reflected on their progress (Figure 34.1). This further reinforced the feed-up process of estab-
CHAPTER 34

Feed Up, Feedback, and Feed Forward
lishing purpose in the minds of the students. It also set the stage for Ms. Randall to provide
feedback during the inquiry unit.
Feedback: How Am I Doing?
Several days later, Ms. Randall’s students constructed a simple composting heap in the school
garden, which was fenced in and used by multiple classes. Students also set up recycling bins
in the classroom (see Internet Resource).
Safety note: The teacher needs to inspect all student items for the compost heap to make
sure they are appropriate and will decompose (i.e., food scraps, paper containers, no meat or
plastic). Hands must always be washed with soap and water after working with compost mate-
rials. A few individuals may be sensitive to some of the organisms (e.g., mold) in compost. The
compost pile should not be stirred or disturbed when individuals who are susceptible to inha-
lation of allergens are nearby. Check with the school nurse and inform parents of this activity
prior to having students do it.
Figure 34.1
Rubric for kindergarten recycling unit
Our science goals
I can do this by
myself!
I am learning how
to do this. This is new for me.
Using math in
science
I can measure the
amount of trash and
garbage we generate
and reduce it.
I know how much
trash we generate, but
I don’t know how to
reduce it.
I don’t know how much
trash and garbage we
generate.
Using science
every day
I can take care of our
compost bin.
I can follow my
teacher’s directions for
taking care of the com-
post bin.
I haven’t used a com-
post bin before.
Using science to
make the world a
better place
I can sort trash and
garbage for recycling
and composting.
Most of the time I can
sort trash and garbage
correctly.
I don’t know how to
sort trash and garbage
yet.
Using science to
solve problems
When there is a
problem, I can use my
science knowledge to
solve it.
I am beginning to use
what I know about
science. Sometimes
the teacher solves it
for me.
The teacher solves
most of my science
problems.
Communicating
with others
I can work with oth-
ers to offer, ask for,
accept, and politely
decline help.
Sometimes this is hard
for me to remember to
work with others, but
I am doing this more
often now.
It is hard for me to
work with others, and I
like to work by myself.
CHAPTER 34

Assessing Inquiry
The students were going to inves-
tigate how much trash and garbage
their class generates and find ways
to recycle as much of it as possible.
The teacher gave each team responsi-
bilities for collecting, sorting, weigh-
ing, and charting their refuse. One
team maintained the compost heap,
another maintained the recycling
bins, and so on. Ms. Randall provided
the necessary materials, including
earthworms and tools (such as shov-
els), as well as instructions for com-
pleting tasks safely (e.g., wear gloves
when handling trash, properly handle
and use tools). After the lunch scraps
were gathered, sorted, and weighed,
one group added the items to the
compost heap and gently mixed
it for the earthworms. The entire
class observed the changes they
saw each day and discussed it with
their teacher, who chronicled their
observations on chart paper.
Ms. Randall was interested in
their content knowledge and the
ways her students worked collab-
oratively. She collected observa-
tional data of her own about the
way each team functioned using a
narrative tool, with the following
indicators: (1) Students are inter-
acting with one another to build
each other’s knowledge. Outward indicators include body language and movement associated
with meaningful conversations, and shared visual gaze on materials. (2) Students use account-
able talk to persuade, provide evidence, ask questions of one another, and disagree without
being disagreeable.
Ms. Randall’s students know that she provides them with information about what they
do well and what they still need to learn about working well together. Since the beginning
of the school year, students worked on what Ms. Randall calls “the helping curriculum.” She
believes that a key life skill for all of her students is to learn how to ask for help, offer help
to others, accept help, and politely decline help (Sapon-Shevin 1998). When she noticed
that the composting group was having difficulty accepting help from one another, wanting
instead to do everything alone, she recognized that this needed to be addressed. She knew
Photographscourtesyoftheauthors
Making observations of fresh apples and a decomposing core (in bag)
Definitions
Feeding up: Establishes a substantive line of inqui-
ry that compels learners to engage in investigation
and inquire and forms the basis for the assessments
that follow.
Feedback: When students understand the purpose
and begin to work, they receive feedback that is
timely and scaffolds their understanding.
Feed Forward: A system that informs the teacher
about what needs to be taught, or what students
need to experience next.
CHAPTER 34

this lack of collaboration would be a
barrier to their science learning, so she
met with the children, using the rubric
(Figure 34.1) as a way to ground the
discussion.
“When you were adding the lunch
leftovers to the composting pile yester-
day, I saw that you were tussling over
who would throw them in, who would
stir, and who would add the water.
Can you tell me about that?” Over the
course of several minutes, it became
clear that the group had not agreed on
whether one person a day should do all
the work, or whether all three of them
should work together each day. As Ms.
Randall reflected on their concerns, the
students began to realize that the job was
bigger than one person could handle, and would take too long. They agreed to try out the task
together. “After you try it together tomorrow, let’s talk about it again to see what worked and
what didn’t.” In this case, Ms. Randall used feedback to develop opportunities for her students
to make changes. By ensuring timely and actionable feedback and follow up, the children had
a clear way to apply the feedback constructively.
Feed Forward: Where Do We Go Next?
An overlooked aspect of assessment is using the data collected to make instructional decisions.
Assessments can be used as a tool for learning when teachers focus on the feed forward aspect and
thenguidestudentstoadditionallearningexperiences.Aswehavenoted,itisnotsufficienttosim-
plyprovidestudentswithfeedbackabouttheirperformance.Instead,wehavetoanalyzetheerrors,
misconceptions, and partial understandings that students have and plan next-step instruction to
ensure that they gain a greater understanding. Feed-forward instruction does not mean that
students are told the information they are missing, though, as that would violate the entire
inquiry process. Rather, feed-forward instruction should involve additional experiences that
help students clarify their understanding and can involve the teacher in questioning, prompt-
ing, and cueing learners. Unfortunately, when students make mistakes, their teachers can also
err by re-assuming the cognitive responsibility in an effort to provide the missing information.
Instead of directly explaining, teachers can guide students to greater understanding through
the use of questions, prompts, and cues.
Questions should allow the teacher to check for understanding. These brief questions
should not simply elicit recall or knowledge-level information, but rather should allow
the teacher to uncover misconceptions or errors. Elaboration questions, which require
that students explain their thinking, are particularly helpful in checking for understand-
ing. When errors or misconceptions are unearthed, teachers can use prompts or cues to
guide the learning. Prompts encourage students to engage in cognitive or metacognitive
Learning what is recyclable
CHAPTER 34

Assessing Inquiry
work, such as when a teacher prompts a student for background knowledge or a problem-
solving heuristic. For example, when Ms. Randall prompted a group of students by saying,
“How is it that items get sorted?” she was asking them to reflect on what they have learned to
correct an error they have made. In addition, cues refocus students on an information source
they are missing. There are a number of cues, including verbal, visual, gestural, physical, and
environmental that all do essentially the same thing—invite the student to notice something
that may help resolve the error or misconception. For example, when Ms. Randall followed up
by saying, “Take another look at the poster we made,” she was cueing students to notice the
qualities that make an item recyclable. Further, this gives her insight into whether a concept
needs to be retaught. Consider Ms. Randall’s feed-forward efforts when the students in one of
the groups attempted to compost items that did not belong in the bin (Figure 34.2).
Figure 34.2
Ms. Randall’s feed-forward efforts
Ms. Randall: How do you know if something can go in the compost?
Brianna: It has to be food.
Eric: Yeah, you gotta be able to eat it.
Ms. Randall: All food goes in the compost?
Brianna: Yeah,all the food.[looking around the room] Banana,sandwich,apple,watermelon,chips …
Destini: I like chips.
Ms. Randall: I’m thinking about the kinds of foods listed on our poster. Remember the poster we made
about food that can go in the compost?
Eric: Yeah, it’s right there, look. [pointing to the wall]
Destini: Not meat, no way.The worms can’t have that meat.And it will make it smell.
Ms. Randall: Right. I remember that, too. No meat for the compost because the worms can’t eat it and
it will just rot.And meat can attract rodents, which we really don’t want, right? And what else? I’m see-
ing some things in your bin for composting that I’m not sure will work.
Brianna: [looking in the bin] No meat.
Eric: Apple, watermelon, bread with peanut butter, peach …
Ms. Randall: Pause right there. What was that?
Destini: It’s my peach.
Ms. Randall: I thought you ate the peach.
Destini: I did. It’s the seed.
Eric: Like the apple seed.
Ms. Randall:Take a look at the size chart next to the list of items for composting.What are you seeing?
Eric: It’s too big! We can’t cut that up to the right size because it’s too hard, so that shouldn’t go in.
The apple seed is small so it can go it, but not that watermelon part.
Ms. Randall: It’s called the rind. And you’re exactly right. The peach pit, the seed from the peach, is
too big and too hard for our worms. We can’t put that in our compost. We can put the watermelon rind
in, if we cut it up.
CHAPTER 34

A Sophisticated Model
Taken together, feed up, feedback, and feed forward provide teachers and learners with a sys-
tem of assessment that is consistent with inquiry-based learning. This system relies on teach-
ers making instructional decisions by guiding their learners to additional experiences. This
requires attention to the content and procedural knowledge that students are learning, as well
as the investigative skills necessary for scientific thought. These often defy simple paper-and-
pencil tests and are therefore overlooked in traditional assessments. However, by drawing from
a more sophisticated model of formative assessment that reflects the inquiry-based nature of
science, both content and investigation are afforded the attention they deserve.
References
Hattie, J., and H. Timperley. 2007. The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research 77:
81–112.
Hill, J. D., and K. M. Flynn. 2006. Classroom instruction that works for English language learners.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Sapon-Shevin, M. 1998. Because we can change the world: A practical guide to building cooperative,
inclusive classroom communities. Boston: Allyn Bacon.
Resources
Cronin, D. 2003. Diary of a worm. New York: HarperCollins.
Gibbons, G. 1996. Recycle! A handbook for kids. New York: Little Brown.
Ryder, J. 1999. Earthdance. New York: Henry Holt.
Internet Resource
How to Make Classroom Compost Bins
www.ehow.com/how_5566061_make-classroom-compost-bins.html
CHAPTER 34

Capitalizing on
Curiosity
The Pursuit for Understanding
the Science During Children’s
Inquiry Experiences
By Adam Devitt
D
o your anxieties flair when a “well-thought-out” lesson goes awry? I planned what I
thought to be an accommodating and appropriate lesson involving sinking or float-
ing stations for our kindergarten, first, and second graders. They had an easy-to-read
chart to record their collected data, with examples and pictures to help orchestrate
what to do. I gave clear, concise directions using visuals. I asked for students to repeat in their
own words what they would be doing during the exploration. I felt that this lesson would go
smoothly, because I thought I had prepared a cognitively and developmentally age-appropriate
lesson for these children, and had even anticipated possible difficult points.
Within moments, I noticed that few children were using their data sheets as requested.
Others were trying to use the data sheet but could only produce scribbles. The noise level
became uncomfortably loud and the children seemed to be playing around at each of the
stations. I tried in vain to help many of the children at their stations. After a long, arduous
cleanup at the end of class, I talked with a couple students to find out why they were “playing
around” the entire class. One student, Tommy, soon looked confused and replied passionately,
“No, we were working the whole time!”
Welcoming Holistic Inquiry
After school, Tommy’s statement occupied my mind as I reflected about my day. I was a little
upset that I did not capitalize on the chaos or recognize that wonderful scientific inquiries were
being explored! It just looked different from what I had anticipated.
Scientific inquiry occurs when students make personal meaning of observed natural phe-
nomena through which learning is shaped by students’ prior knowledge and their own curiosities
about natural phenomena (McDermott, Shaffer, and Constantinou 2000). Depending on vari-
ous characteristics of the students, science investigations in the classroom will look different. For
example, with younger children, you may observe what seems like random play with moments of
surprise and nuance, some of which could be perceived as chaos. As students get older, you may
CHAPTER 35

see more systematic explorations involving overt
student questions, explanations, and arguments.
However, regardless of how students approach their
explorations, they are still guided by their personal
wonderings and attempts to make sense out of their
own questions. This creates an authentic and mean-
ingful learning experience because the motivation
for learning is created through students’ personal
curiosities. Children need not be forced to learn
how we want them to learn but rather be encour-
aged to develop their own ideas within settings we
facilitate. By welcoming these new ideas, teachers
can generate wonderful opportunities for students
to share an investment in their own learning.
Assessing for Understanding
As one may anticipate, a traditional multiple-choice or question-and-answer format may not
be the most appropriate informing tools for understanding children’s learning. So what could
formative assessment look like during children’s inquiry experiences? When trying to assess the
learning during science exploration, it is important to think about the content, process, and even
the epistemic values considering the significance of matching methods of assessment to instruc-
tion (Taylor and Nolen 2008). Teachers can monitor student engagement with their explorations
and listen to how they interact with other students. Because inquiry is student centered, teachers
should facilitate organic learning that can be cultivated through open-ended and student-student
questioning while students explore, process their observations, and synthesize understanding.
This method of holistic, formative assessment will illustrate a vivid picture of student understand-
ing of learned content and the learning process.
Facilitating the Inquiry Experience
On day one of teaching my lesson, I asked a child to stop “fooling around and clean up the
mess” as he dunked an empty 2-liter bottle into a tub of water and caused water to overflow
everywhere. I was responding to an unexpected behavior. What I saw as fooling around was
really a student who did not understand directions, was not able to perform some of the tasks,
and was not developed at the level of the demanded task.
To foster effective learning through inquiry, it is important to make conscious efforts to
understand the science in children’s thinking from careful listening and observing in the class-
room (Hammer and van Zee 2006). Part of the assessment process of teaching science requires
a keen awareness of how children develop personally meaningful understandings by connect-
ing their “play” actions with their background knowledge and experiences. This does not mean
that learning goals and objectives are obsolete. Teachers still need to have an agenda and can
focus student inquiries through the materials they choose and asking provoking questions. On
day two of this lesson with a new group the same age, I observed a different student trying the
same experiment. This time my reaction was welcoming and thought-provoking. The student,
Capitalizing on Curiosity
Students explore what sinks and what floats.
Photographscourtesyoftheauthor
CHAPTER 35

Assessing Inquiry
Denny, was pushing down a floating, 2-liter bottle into the tub of water, overflowing the tub.
He stopped and cringed as I walked by.
Teacher: No Denny, it’s OK. What were you trying?
Denny: I wanted to see what would happen?
Teacher: … and what happened?
Denny: The water went over the side and made a big mess …
Teacher: I see that, but why did that happen? Why did the water overflow?
Denny: ’Cause when I went like this [pushing down on the water bottle], it [the bottle] took
up lots of space and the water couldn’t fit [in the tub], so it just overflowed.
Reflecting about what happened on day one helped me prepare mentally for what might
take place in the future. Luckily, I was given a chance to redeem myself and I capitalized on this
“moment of chaos” to turn it into a positive and motivating teaching moment! By observing
this student, I was able to make sense of what he was trying to do. Denny appeared to be ask-
ing, What will happen if I push the empty bottle down in the water? By testing his natural inquiry,
he seemed to have gained the knowledge that empty bottles take up space and water will be dis-
placed to make that happen when a force is applied. He clearly was able to define a claim based
on an observation: The water went over the side. He further supported this claim by explaining
that pushing down on the empty bottle caused the tub to overflow. Last, he reasoned that the
bottle must be taking up space and that is why there was no room for the water in the tub.
Understanding How Children “Do” Science
Children come to school having a wealth of experiences ranging from playing in the backyard,
watching their favorite TV shows, and even taking family trips to museums. The assessment pro-
cess truly begins by understanding what ideas students are bringing to the classroom. Whether
children come to the classroom with accurate representations or misconceptions of natural phe-
nomena, they nonetheless hold personal ideas that are important to them (Hammer and van Zee
2006). By listening to children discuss their prior experiences and seeking to understand how they
develop their current conceptions, we can learn starting points from which to devise explorations
so that students make new observations and play with materials. Formative assessments can con-
tribute by helping to make informed decisions about which new experiences would best fit.
During our exploration with sinking and floating, I had an intriguing conversation with
a student. It was important to put into context what the child was saying, how she was saying
it, and her actions. I came over to see what one student was doing. Tanya was throwing many
different objects haphazardly into the bucket of water until she made a surprise discovery! The
following conversation ensued:
Teacher: Hey, what happened?
Tanya: (shocked) The wooden one floats!
Teacher: (pointing to the metal spoon) Well, what happened to that one?
Tanya: That one sank.
Teacher: Hum! So, why do you think that is?
CHAPTER 35

Tanya: That one is metal and metal is heavy!
Teacher: What about this one? (pointing to the wooden spoon)
Tanya: That one is not metal, so it floats!
From the surprised expression on her face it
seemed that Tanya anticipated, perhaps from prior
experiences, that all spoons should sink. Maybe
she had only experienced using metal spoons. She
mentioned that the metal one sank, casually, as if
that was the expected result. But when the wooden
one floated, she seems to question her mental con-
ception of spoons and whether wooden spoons
should float, and for that reason she seems to reor-
ganize her understanding of what floats into the
categories of “metal” and “not metal.” As a result
of inquiring into the “chaos” that was occurring
in the classroom, I was able to discover how these
young minds created and pursued their own curi-
osities through the scientific process. By allowing
the children, such as Tanya, to freely play, explore,
and follow personal wonderings, I created a learn-
ing environment where students were motivated
to make meaningful learning, and endeavor to
make sense of what they were doing on their own.
Safety note: As with any open-inquiry exploration, it is important that teachers anticipate
and prevent many possible hazards like wet floors. Make sure to keep lots of clean-up tools on
hand and talk with students about what it looks like to be safe in a science classroom before
they set out on their explorations. Although students should be encouraged to continue their
inquiries at home, they should do so with parent supervision.
Science Talks
The inquiry process should support the link between the scientific process and science con-
tent (Lehrer, Schauble, and Lucas 2008). Although this free exploration time is valuable, it is
important to provide opportunities to refocus and reflect on learning to make students cogni-
zant of not only new content knowledge but also how these new ideas are developing. Children
can learn how to look back at what they did and extract what they feel is valuable to share with
their classmates. To facilitate this experience, we have a science talk at the end of each class to
hear what each child has learned, what new curiosities they still have, and allow for open dis-
course among students. During one of these talks, our sharing evolved into an occasion for
students to practice communicating like scientists and have an argument.
Eli: The pop bottle filled with water sank because of the water. My dad says water is one of the
heaviest things on Earth.
Jackie: No, I don’t think water is heavy. I think it is light.
Capitalizing on Curiosity
Sinking experimentation was followed by reflection.
CHAPTER 35

Assessing Inquiry
This beginning conversation opened the way for other students to give their ideas and
explanations about the “weight of water.” By listening to the students and seeing how they were
forming a conceptualization about water from one another’s ideas, I could respond by asking
additional questions, prompting for more evidence, and providing future explorations to test
their ideas to deepen and challenge their understanding. In addition, I recognized the value of
having students think about new curiosities. Following the sinking and floating lesson, one of
the kindergarten students, Christopher, said:
This weekend, I wanted to play more with sinking and floating. Me and my brother went
home and filled up the bathtub and got a bunch of things from around the house and we
threw them in the tub to see if they sinked or floated.
I was delighted to hear that he was not only continuing to explore on his own, but he was
sharing his learning with his family members in a free-choice setting. Because Christopher had
some experiences in school he could re-create at home, he was motivated and capable to pursue
his own inquiries. Isn’t that one of our main goals for our young scientists?
Valuing Reflection
State and national standards have shifted what science learning should be from “plug and
chug” formulas, to deep understanding of natural phenomena, competence developing ideas
through the inquiry process, and even communicating scientific ideas among their communi-
ties (NRC 2007). By inquiring into my own teaching endeavors, I continue to value the reflec-
tion and assessment processes and recognize how they help me strive to cultivate improvements
in my own learning toward being a more effective and competent educator. I do not suggest
that teachers change their teaching to solely address newly mandated standards from higher
powers, but many of the new standards are better representations of teaching and learning
practices that address the needs of the whole child and ways to connect their classroom learn-
ing to the outside world. There is much to learn by listening to what children say and how they
interact with one another and their environment. Supporting inquiry is a way to advance class-
room instruction and prepare students to become better scientists in their own communities.
References
Hammer, D., and E. van Zee. 2006. Seeing the science in children’s thinking: Case studies of student
inquiry in physical science. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Lehrer, R., L. Schauble, and D. Lucas. 2008. Supporting development of the epistemology of
inquiry. Cognitive Development 24: 512–529.
McDermott, L. C., P. S. Shaffer, and C. P. Constantinou. 2000. Preparing teachers to teach phys-
ics and physical science by inquiry. Physics Education 35 (6): 411–416.
National Research Council (NRC). 2007. Taking science to school: Learning and teaching sci-
ence in grades K–8. Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten Through Eighth Grade.
Duschl, R. A., H. A. Schweingruber, and A. W. Shouse (Eds.). Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
Taylor, C. S., and S. B. Nolen. 2008. Classroom assessment: Supporting teaching and learning in real
classrooms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.
CHAPTER 35

Whoooo Knew?
Assessment Strategies for Inquiry
Science
By Ellen Schiller and Jacque Melin
W
ho knew it would happen? Classroom assessment practices have shifted from a
focus on checking for students’ understanding of memorized material to exam-
ining their conceptual understanding as they engage in activities that involve
scientific reasoning, inquiry skills, performances, and products. Inquiry-based
science has shifted instruction away from teacher-centered, didactic teaching to student-
centered, active learning. This shift is naturally accompanied by a need for formative assessment
strategies that help students and teachers determine the learning that is occurring along the way.
The BSCS 5E Instructional Model (Bybee and Landes 1990) embeds assessment through-
out the inquiry process:
• Eliciting prior knowledge before a lesson or unit,
• Checking for understanding throughout the unit, and
• Conducting summative assessment at the end of a unit to determine student learning.
Standardized summative assessment continues to garner the most attention, but science
teachers know that it’s critical to effectively evaluate student understanding during inquiry-
based learning. We discuss several assessment strategies that you can use and adapt for inquiry-
based science units, using the example of a weeklong fifth-grade unit about owls and owl
pellets. These strategies, appropriate for middle to upper-elementary level students, actively
involve students and provide them with the opportunity to self-assess their own learning.
Teachers need to check for understanding and offer feedback in every phase of the learn-
ing cycle so that students can conduct sound investigations, draw useful conclusions, and
fully develop scientific ideas. To give effective feedback, all assessments should focus on pre-
determined learning targets. The results will supply information about how well each stu-
dent understands science concepts and how effectively they use scientific process skills such as
observing, interpreting, and communicating (Institute for Inquiry 2010).
CHAPTER 36

Assessing Inquiry
Correlating Standards
Dissecting owl pellets is a common inquiry activity in elementary classrooms. Students enjoy pull-
ing apart the pellets to discover what the owl ate. Safety note: Purchase commercially sterilized
owl pellets and closely supervise students when using forceps or dissecting probes. We have found
that plastic forceps work best, and dissecting needles are unnecessary. Students who are asthmatic
or highly allergic to animal hair may need to be excused from dissecting real pellets. Pellets, Inc.,
offers the faux Perfect Pellet as an alternative (see Internet Resources). Students could also engage
in virtual pellet dissection, which is a great follow-up extension for all pellet dissectors. Another
typical follow-up task is to sort and identify the rodent bones found in the pellets. Often this is
done as a “stand alone” activity, but owl pellet dissection can launch a full-fledged unit addressing
learning targets related to food chains, food webs, animal adaptations, and predator/prey relation-
ships. Assessments that link directly to the learning targets play a key role in any unit.
When developing sound assessments, begin by identifying clear statements of intended
learning. These statements start with the science standards, but then the standards must be
“deconstructed” and written as learning targets (i.e., objectives or goals) that can be shared
with your students. Targets should be converted into student-friendly language through the
use of “I can” statements. Shirley Clarke, a British teacher and author, recommends that “I
can” statements be written to describe how well students have learned the targets and that they
should be posted, not just shared verbally (Stiggins et al. 2009).
For our unit on owls, we deconstructed the relevant life science National Science Educa-
tion Standards to determine our learning targets. Life Science Content Standard C, “The char-
acteristics of organisms” is adapted into the “I can” statement: “I can describe the unique phys-
ical and behavioral characteristics of an owl.” We address the following physical characteristics
of owls: eyesight, hearing, silent flight, talons, beaks, and diet, as well as the owl’s behavioral
characteristics. Figure 36.1 shows how the learning targets were shared with students in this
unit. Students were given individual copies of the targets and colored in each section of the owl
as they demonstrated their mastery.
Making targets clear to students at the outset of a unit is the most important foundation
to any assessment practice. Throughout the 5E model, students are engaged in hands-on explo-
rations, investigations, and research, from which the teacher helps facilitate scientific under-
standings and explanations. As the teacher’s role changes to one of facilitator, it’s imperative
that students understand the intended learning targets. Each of the assessment strategies we
shared involves active student involvement and reflection on the learning targets.
Diagnostic Preassessments
Before beginning any science unit, it’s important to engage students and elicit prior knowledge
and possible misconceptions. Anticipation guides are a good method. Focused on key learning
targets, anticipation guides list one to six true and false statements for grades 4–6 (one to four
statements for primary grades, four to six for upper elementary). Lead your students through
a discussion of the statements, having them share their rationale, prior knowledge, or current
thinking about each statement before marking their predictions. You can use the predictions
and discussion as tools for planning and revising unit lessons. After the learning targets have
been taught, revisit the anticipation guide with your students and together check off which
statements were true and false.
CHAPTER 36

Whoooo Knew?
Figure 36.1
Learning targets
I can describe
what an owl pellet is
and how it is made.
I can define
nocturnal, diurnal
and crepuscular.
I can
explain
the terms
predator
and prey.
I can draw
a simple food
chain
showing the
energy flow
from the Sun
to an owl.
I can describe
the unique
physical and
behavioral
characteristics
of an owl.
I can
classify the
role of each
organism in
the food web
of an owl.
I can describe the energy flow in the food web of an owl.
CHAPTER 36

Assessing Inquiry
Although anticipation guides can also be completed individually via paper and pencil,
we’ve found that the rich discussion that results when leading your whole class through the
guide is more effective. Students enjoy sharing their opinions, background knowledge, and
thought processes, along with casting their prediction votes and seeing whether they can con-
vince classmates to vote their way.
Anticipation Guide
Figure 36.2 lists six sample statements about owls, all of which focus on the “big picture” unit
learning targets. Make a copy to display on your document camera or overhead projector. Share
with students that the anticipation guide lists six statements, some of which are true and some
of which are false. Let them know that, during the inquiry unit, they will learn which are true or
false through hands-on investigation, research, reading, and video clips (see Internet Resources).
Next, read aloud each statement, allowing time for students to share their thoughts and predic-
tions after each one. Although some students will share misconceptions, avoid commenting on
students’ ideas or sharing “correct” information at this early stage of the unit. We’ve found that
students are more willing to share as the school year progresses, especially if you’ve created a risk-
free learning community in which respect is given to students when they share ideas and ques-
tions with each other. After enough discussion time has passed for each statement (3–5 minutes
is usually sufficient), take a vote and record the results on the chart. Students will now be engaged
in the unit, ready to learn and find out whether they were right in their predictions.
We have used this anticipation guide many times and have found that it provides a great
springboard to a unit on owls and predator/prey relationships. Note that the statements are writ-
ten in kid-friendly language to help engage students. The statements also include some qualifying
adjectives and adverbs, such as strictly and all; we’ve found that this helps to ensure a thoughtful
Figure 36.2
Anticipation guide
Prediction Findings
Statement Agree Disagree True False
1. Owls have an excellent sense of smell, which helps
them locate prey in darkness.
2. Owl pellets are owl poop.
3. Owls are strictly carnivorous.
4. All species of owls are nocturnal.
5. Adult owls have few natural predators.
6. It is a federal crime to intentionally injure or kill an owl.
For the answer key, visit www.nsta.org/SC1107.
CHAPTER 36

discussion. At first blush, students may think that owls are nocturnal, but adding the qualifier
all makes them think: Are all owls nocturnal, or are there exceptions to this commonly held belief?
When constructing anticipation guides, it’s also important to write statements that avoid trivial
details. No one will know how many bones an owl has. Stick to the big picture learning targets
and concepts.
Embedded Formative Assessments
Formative assessment that is embedded throughout the unit gives you valuable feedback about
students’ learning along the way. It allows you to intervene with struggling students, provide
challenges for those who are ready, and adapt future lessons for more widespread achievement.
Formative assessment also helps students monitor their own learning.
Think Dots
The “think dot” activity shown in Figure 36.3 could be used to help students share what they
have learned about the unique physical and behavioral adaptations that allow nocturnal owls
to hunt in darkness. Students enjoy the novelty of this activity as they formatively assess their
Whoooo Knew?
Figure 36.3
Think dots
Directions: Pairs of students are given a “think dot” sheet and a die. They take turns rolling the die to come up
with a number that corresponds to a cell on the think dot sheet. For example, the first student rolls #3. The pair
of students then discusses #3 (silent flight), including what they have learned about the physical appearance of
the feathers and wings of the owl and how these characteristics help it to hunt prey at night. Each student then
records this information in his or her science journal. Next, the second student rolls the die, and the pair follows
the same procedure for a new number on the think dot sheet. Students continue to roll the die and report on
their understanding until all six physical and behavioral adaptations are discussed and recorded. The teacher
can collect the science journals and check for students’ understanding of the physical characteristics of the owl.
Learning target: I can explain the unique physical and behavioral characteristics of an owl.
Eyesight Hearing Silent Flight
Talons and Beak Behavior Diet
CHAPTER 36

Assessing Inquiry
understanding. Students report that they benefit from an activity that involves working with a
partner to discuss and compare answers. They also like using the die, which makes this assess-
ment more tactile.
Formative and Summative Assessments
Carol Ann Tomlinson (2006), an expert in differentiated instruction, states that assessments
can be differentiated based on readiness, interest, and learning profile. However, it’s critical
that all variations of an assessment allow students to demonstrate what they’ve learned in refer-
ence to the learning targets.
Show-and-Tell Board
We created a show-and-tell board (Figure 36.4) for use as a differentiated summative assess-
ment for some of the targets in this unit (Heacox 2009). Even though they have a choice of
product, each student shows and tells what he or she knows about the same learning targets.
After they read the task, students select a “show” from the top row of the show-and-tell board
and a “tell” from the bottom row. For example, a student might choose to do a PowerPoint pre-
sentation to show the food web and write detailed sentences to explain (tell) the flow of energy.
Figure 36.4
Show-and-tell board
Learning targets:
I can classify the role of each organism in the food web of an owl.
I can explain the energy flow in the food web of an owl.
Task: Construct a food web with the owl at the highest trophic level. Be sure to include producers (green
plants) and decomposers in your food web. Also include the Sun. The intermediate organisms should include
the prey found in the owl pellets that you dissected in class. Label the role of all organisms and use arrows to
show the energy flow between each organism. Finally, explain the flow of energy in the food web.
SHOW Draw a poster showing a
food web with the owl at the
highest trophic level. Label
the role of all organisms
(consumer, producer, decom-
poser). Use arrows to show
the energy flow between
each organism.
Create a PowerPoint pre-
sentation showing a food web
with the owl at the highest
trophic level. Label the role
of all organisms (consumer,
producer, decomposer). Use
arrows to show the energy
flow between each organism.
Design a brochure show-
ing a food web with the owl
at the highest trophic level.
Label the role of all organisms
(consumer, producer, decom-
poser). Use arrows to show
the energy flow between each
organism.
TELL Explain the energy flow in the
food web by writing a de-
scriptive paragraph.
Explain the energy flow in the
food web by writing a story.
Explain the energy flow in the
food web by writing detailed
sentences.
CHAPTER 36

Figure 36.5
Show-and-tell board rubric
Target 5 3 1
I can clas-
sify the role of
each organ-
ism in the
food web.
I have accurately illustrated
and classified all of the
organisms as either con-
sumer, producer, or decom-
poser in the food web.
and classified some of the
organisms as either con-
and classified very few of
the organisms as either con-
I can explain
the energy
flow in the
food web of
an owl.
I have pointed all arrows in
the correct direction of the
energy flow and have accu-
rately described the flow of
energy in the food web.
I have pointed some of the
arrows in the correct direc-
tion of the energy flow and
partially described the flow of
I have pointed a few of the
arrows in the correct direction
of the energy flow and have
not described the flow of
Rubric
The most common way to judge performance-based responses is through the use of a rubric.
When designing rubrics, it’s important to stay true to the learning targets being assessed. (Note
that on the rubric in Figure 36.5, only the learning targets are scored.) Rubrics should be writ-
ten in student-friendly language and help students understand what they must do to achieve
a top-level score for a given target. Omit all trivial or unrelated features; criteria like neatness,
attractiveness, color, artistic talent, effort, or design should not be included. You could give
your students “work habits” feedback on these elements, but they should not be scored. If you
are interested in developing your own rubrics, see Internet Resources.
RAFT and Think-Tac-Toe
Other types of differentiated choice activities that could be used as either formative or summa-
tive assessments include RAFTs or think-tac-toe boards.
A RAFT is an engaging strategy that encourages writing across the curriculum. It provides
a way for teachers to encourage students to
• assume a Role,
• consider their Audience,
• write in a particular Format, and
• examine a Topic from a relevant perspective.
An example RAFT writing choice board that could be used as an alternative to the show
and tell board is shown in Figure 36.6 (p. 200). In this case, student choice is given through a
choice of format used.
Whoooo Knew?CHAPTER 36

Assessing Inquiry
Figure 36.6
RAFT writing choice board
Directions: You will take on the role of an owl, explaining the owl’s food web and how it connects to the owl’s
diet (topic), to prey (the audience). You have a choice of formats. Please see the RAFT choice board below.
Role Audience Formats (choices) Topic
Owl Prey • a 3-minute speech with visual aides
• a flowchart
• an important e-mail
• an interview between an “owl” and “prey”
• a newspaper story
Explain my food web and how it
connects to my diet.
Think-tac-toe choice boards play off the familiar childhood game. Typically, a think-tac-
toe grid has nine cells in it like the tic-tac-toe game. Each cell contains alternative ways for
students to express key ideas and key skills. It’s important that no matter which choices stu-
dents make, they must grapple with the key ideas and use the key skills central to the topic
or area of study (Tomlinson 2003). In most cases, students choose to do three of the activi-
ties and form a tic-tac-toe (down, across, or diagonally).
Figure 36.7
Think-tac-toe choice board
Directions: Choose three activities in a row (down, across, or diagonally) to form a tic-tac-toe. For each choice,
select a different physical or behavioral characteristic (eyesight, hearing, silent flight, talons beak, behavior,
diet).
Create a game for learning about
the importance of one of the
physical or behavioral character-
istics of owls.
Create a PowerPoint presenta-
tion that could be used to teach
students about the importance of
one of the physical or behavioral
characteristics of owls.
Write and recite a poem that
shows the importance of one of
the physical or behavioral charac-
teristics of owls.
Make a flow chart to summarize
important information about one
of the physical or behavioral char-
acteristics of owls.
Write an essay about the impor-
tance of one of the physical or
behavioral characteristics of owls.
Plan and present a debate about
which one of the physical or
behavioral characteristics of owls
is most important. Note:You may
work on this with a partner; each
take a different side of the debate.
Write and present an advertise-
ment explaining which one of the
physical or behavioral characteris-
tics of owls is most important.
Write and perform a song or rap
about the importance of one of
the physical or behavioral charac-
teristics of owls.
Write and illustrate a children’s
book explaining the importance
of one of the physical or behav-
ioral characteristics of owls.
CHAPTER 36

An example is shown in Figure 36.7 of a think-tac-toe choice board that could be used as
a formative assessment to determine what students know about the physical and behavioral
characteristics of owls. This think-tac-toe choice board could be used as an ongoing formative
assessment throughout the unit on owls. We’ve found that students are motivated by this dif-
ferentiated assessment because they really enjoy having different product choices as they show
us what they’ve learned.
Conclusion
Whether you are seeking to maximize learning while dissecting owl pellets, or searching for
new ways to integrate effective assessment practices into your teaching, we hope these strategies
will be valuable to you and your students as you use assessment to determine “Whoooo knew?”
References
Bybee, R., and N. M. Landes. 1990. Science for life and living: An elementary school science
program from Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. The American Biology Teacher 52 (2):
92–98.
Heacox, D. 2009. Making differentiation a habit: How to ensure success in academically diverse
classrooms. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Press.
Institute for Inquiry. 2010. “Workshop 1: Introduction to Formative Assessment.” Accessed De-
cember 8. www.exploratorium.edu/ifi.
Stiggins, R. J., J. Arter, J. Chappuis, and S. Chappuis. 2009. Classroom assessment for student
learning: Doing it right—using it well. Portland, OR: Assessment Training Institute.
Tomlinson, C. A. 2003. Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom: Strategies and tools for
responsive teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Tomlinson, C. A., and J. McTighe. 2006. Integrating differentiated instruction and understanding
by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Internet Resources
Kidwings
www.kidwings.com
Owl Cam
www.owlcam.com
Pellets, Incorporated
www.pelletsinc.com
Rubistar
www.rubistar.com
Whoooo Knew
www.whooooknew.com
Whoooo Knew?CHAPTER 36

Assessing inquiry

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Assessing inquiry (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Assessing inquiry