‘Learning Environments’ Unit Rationale

‘Learning Environments’ is an aspirational plan for a unit of work for a STEM-Integrated Design Inquiry for year 6 students (11-12 year olds). It includes suggested learning experiences and targets specific Australian curriculum content. However, the overall structure is flexible and can be adapted to suit individual contexts and the capabilities of individual students. The development of the unit was created through a combination of complementary learning theories, models and frameworks. This rationale provides background information and justification of the development of the integrated STEM unit, which embodies a constructivist approach and aims to facilitate an environment in which questioning skills, visible thinking routines, and understanding are encouraged and developed. The unit is loosely organised into three junctures, based primarily on a fusion of Guided Inquiry Design (Kuhlthau, Maniotes, Caspari, 2015) and Design Thinking (Hasso Plattner Institute of Design, 2017).

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download

The intention of the unit is to progress through the levels of the inquiry continuum: from a mostly teacher-directed, structured inquiry; to a coupled approach, combining teacher and student direction; (potentially) ending in an open, student-directed inquiry (Bell, Smetana & Binns, 2005; Lupton, 2010; Martin-Hansen, 2002). This is highly dependent on the students and their context. Students with experience working within an inquiry learning framework will be more prepared and capable of working in the ‘Open’ level of inquiry and those with limited experience may benefit from a more structured approach. The students for which this unit was developed, have experience with collaborative group work, have had some prior experience with Inquiry learning frameworks, and are familiar with questioning routines, such as the regular use of Sharratt and Fullan’s (2008) ‘five critical questions.’

As an integrated STEM unit, the curriculum content is taken mostly from the Science, Technologies and Maths Learning Areas of the Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2017).  The unit requires students to create a working prototype of a digital solution using electronic building blocks, LittleBits. The content drives the inquiry, as without content there is no Inquiry (Kuhlthau, Maniotes & Caspari, 2015; Murdoch, 2015). The other major purpose of the unit is the development of Information Literacy and other skills embodied in the Australian Curriculum’s ‘General Capabilities’. Using an inquiry approach to teaching and learning aids in developing many of the capabilities in the ‘Critical and Creative Thinking’ area. Other capabilities which are addressed are aspects of the ICT, Literacy, Numeracy and Personal and Social capability (ACARA, 2017).

In Guided Inquiry Design (GID), assessment is an active and continual process. Formative assessment occurs throughout the inquiry unit, guiding reflexive responses to support student learning (Kuhlthau, Maniotes & Caspari, 2015, p. 149). Assessment data is collected through the learning activities such as journals, logs, charts and visible thinking artefacts, as well as through observation and student conferences.  Summative evaluation occurs during the ‘Gather’ and ‘Create’ phases, where students present their learning journey, including their final design prototype, in a method of their choice and are judged against a jointly constructed assessment rubric (Kuhlthau, Maniotes & Caspari, 2015).

Juncture One – Open, Immerse, Explore AND Empathize

Integrated GID & DT Unit overview 1 – Lotte ten Hacken, 2017

The ‘Open’ phase of the inquiry is designed to connect to the student’s world and make connections to their school world, in order to create ‘Third Space’ (Kuhlthau, Maniotes, Caspari, 2015, p.25). Through asking students to identify and analyse their learning environments away from school (e.g. public library, bedroom, karate hall) they are invited to make connections between their personal experiences and the curriculum of the inquiry (p.31). The questioning and thinking routines in this phase are of particular significance, as it sets the tone and the topic for the community of inquiry (pg. 55). Asking authentic questions, where the answers are unknown, helps foster a classroom climate of intellectual engagement and helps teachers become an accepted part of the learning community rather than the ‘expert’ (Ritchhart, Church & Morrison, 2011, p. 31). The suggested learning activities involve ‘making thinking visible’ and support learners who may be feeling a lack of clarity in this ‘initiation’ stage of the Information Search Process (ISP)(Kuhlthau, 2004b; Ritchhart, Church & Morrison, 2011).

In the context of this unit, the Immerse phase is indicative of a structured level of inquiry; the goal is to build background knowledge in order to develop genuine curiosity, which will (hopefully) lead to deeper understandings later in the unit (Bell, Smetana & Binns, 2005; Lupton, 2010; Martin-Hansen, 2002). This begins with collaborative thinking routines that activate prior knowledge and stimulate interest in the topic (Kuhlthau, Maniotes, Caspari, 2015, pg. 58). Questioning techniques are naturally incorporated into this phase, helping students connect with the content, reflect on their ideas and build further interest and motivation. One such strategy is the ‘Question Formulation Technique’ (QFT) which begins with students producing numerous questions and then improving them by opening and closing them (Rothstein & Santana, 2011). This phase is indicative of the ‘selection’ phase of the ISP, where students are encouraged to articulate their specific areas of interest within the topic (Kuhlthau, 2004b).

In the final phase of the first juncture, Explore, students consult a variety of sources and they seek relevant information about their specific area of interest (chosen in the Immerse phase) (Kuhlthau, Maniotes, Caspari, 2015). The facets of understanding required in this stage are likely to be ‘perspective’ and ‘interpretation’ (Wiggins and McTighe, 2015). The frustration and feelings of discouragement often associated with this phase (Kuhlthau, 2004b) are mitigated through ‘Interventions’ including explicit instruction of relevant skills and content. This phase is indicative of the ‘exploration’ phase of the ISP and requires students to formulate their own ideas into focused research questions. The Question Formulation Technique (QFT) is revisited here, with students again prioritising their questions and narrowing them down (Rothstein & Santana, 2011). This phase incorporates vital information literacy skills, encapsulated by the framework of the ‘Generic’ and ‘Situated’ Windows of the GeSTE Windows (Lupton & Bruce, 2010). In the context of the ‘Learning Environments’ unit, this will involve general Library (Text and Internet sources) re-search, as well as collecting and analysing scientific and mathematical data about subjects’ preferred learning environments.

The unit is designed to be a STEM integrated inquiry and design task, where the design process runs alongside the inquiry framework. The design process utilised is the Design Thinking framework, by Stanford University’s design school (d_school). Juncture One of the inquiry incorporates the first stage of Design Thinking – Empathize, which unsurprisingly draws on the ’empathy’ facet of understanding (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). In the Empathize phase, students observe, engage and listen to the people involved in the context of their design challenge in order to best gain an understanding of their needs.  Berger (2014) describes a similar process as ‘contextual inquiry’. “Contextual inquiry is about asking questions up close and in context, relying on observation, listening, and empathy to guide us toward a more intelligent, and therefore more effective, question.”(Berger, 2014, p. 97). In this unit, students are required to empathise with fellow students and make thorough (as well as scientific) observations of the learning environments in order to learn about what is needed to address the design challenge. This relates directly to the general capability of critical and creative thinking, where students are required to inquire through identifying, exploring and organising information and ideas (ACARA, 2017).

Juncture One is indicative of a structured level of inquiry, with explicit learning activities providing students with the opportunities to build a good understanding of the context and the content (Bell, Smetana & Binns, 2005). The required thinking skills in this stage cover almost the full range of thinking skills (minus ‘Creating’), when labelled according to the commonly used, hierarchical model, Bloom’s revised taxonomy (Krathwohl, 2002).  However, this conceptualisation of thinking skills is not necessarily useful or necessary within an inquiry learning framework that requires ‘higher-order’ thinking throughout the entire process. Moreover, the use of ‘Understanding’ at the lower end of Bloom’s revised taxonomy is counterintuitive, when you consider the overarching goals of education (Ritchhart, Church & Morrison, 2011, p. 6). It is of greater benefit to draw on an explanation of the ‘six facets of understanding’ by Wiggins and McTighe (2005, p. 84).

“Thinking doesn’t happen in a lockstep, sequential manner, systematically progressing from one level to the next. It is much messier, complex, dynamic, and interconnected than that. Thinking is intricately connected to content; and for every type or act of thinking, we can discern levels or performance… …understanding isn’t a type of thinking one does, but is in fact a chief goal of thinking.” (Ritchhart, Church & Morrison, 2011, p. 8).

Juncture TwoIdentify, Gather AND Define, Ideate

Integrated GID & DT Unit overview 2 – Lotte ten Hacken, 2017

The goal of the ’Identify’ phase is for students to form a focus, through developing an inquiry question that will frame the rest of the inquiry and support their design project (Kuhlthau, Maniotes, Caspari, 2015). Students revisit questioning strategies such as ‘prioritising’ questions as part of the Question Formulation Technique (QFT) (Rothstein & Santana, 2011). Warren Berger’s model of asking a ‘more beautiful question’ is a particularly useful questioning technique during juncture two, as it can guide the creation of hypotheses (and design ideas) for further exploration (Berger, 2014). Visible thinking strategies (Ritchhart, Church & Morrison, 2011) are highly effective in this phase and can act as ‘zones of intervention’ as students move into the ‘formulation’ stage of the Information Search Process (ISP) and gain feelings of clarity (Kuhlthau, Maniotes & Caspari, 2015). These thinking routines help synthesise and organise questions, ideas and information. This stage exemplifies the higher-order thinking and deep understanding (such as explanation and interpretation) that is required during inquiry learning (Kuhlthau, Maniotes & Caspari, 2015; Wiggins and McTighe, 2005).

Once their focus is clearly articulated, students move to the ‘Gather’ phase. This is where the level of inquiry changes slightly from highly structured, to a slightly guided or coupled approach, where students have more freedom to drive the learning experiences and use the facets of understanding of interpretation and application (Bell, Smetana & Binns, 2005; Lupton, 2010; Martin-Hansen, 2002; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). Using the data they have already collected, plus a renewed focus, students continue their information seeking from a variety of sources to deepen and widen their understanding of their chosen topic. Visible thinking routines that require perspective taking are particularly useful at this stage of the inquiry (Ritchhart, Church & Morrison, 2011). The ‘collection’ phase of the ISP flows naturally from ‘formulation’; students in this stage typically gain confidence with their growing expertise (Kuhlthau, Maniotes & Caspari, 2015). Concomitantly, the Define stage of ‘Design Thinking’ requires the analysis and synthesis of all of the relevant data in order to define the core problem to be solved and requires the ability to ‘apply’ their understandings (Hasso Plattner Institute of Design, 2017; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005).

The use of the question ‘What if?’ (Berger, 2014) at this stage, encourages a natural progression into the Ideate stage of the design process. This stage of the design process involves generating multiple ideas, consistent with the element of the Critical and creative thinking capability that requires ‘generating ideas, possibilities and actions.’ This process of ‘going wide’ complements the Gather phase of the inquiry process. Particularly appropriate techniques for brainstorming, or ‘ideation’ of design ideas for the ‘Learning Environments’ unit are suggested by Dam and Siang (2017) from the Interactive Design Foundation and include Storyboards, where scenarios are created with images and speech bubbles, and the technique of ‘Bodystorming,’ which involves physically acting out situations. The generation of ideas, possibilities and actions are consistent with the Australian Curriculum’s, Critical and creative thinking capability (ACARA, 2017).

Juncture ThreeIdeate, Protoype and Test AND Create, Share 

Integrated GID & DT Unit overview 3 – Lotte ten Hacken, 2017

The Ideation phase continues into Juncture Three until ideas are finally narrowed down (to a small number of ideas) and are clearly articulated. In ‘Learning Environments’ this phase is completed through a technique such as ‘Crowdstorm’ which involves asking the target audience (the school community) to comment on, or judge shortlisted ideas (Dam & Siang, 2017). Visible thinking in this phase takes the form of presenting data and decision-making in a method deemed appropriate by the students. Ideation is followed by the Prototype and Test stage, where initially designs are produced as quickly as possible and tested through role-play scenarios (Hasso Plattner Institute of Design, 2017). In this context, the two stages of the design process are intertwined. As changes and decisions are made, higher quality prototypes are created until students are satisfied with a ‘final’ product (or time runs out!).

The Create phase represents the most open level of inquiry, allowing students to choose a way to communicate their ideas and represent new knowledge. They are required to articulate what is important about the topic and highlight the depth of their understanding (Kuhlthau, Maniotes & Caspari, 2015). Eight ‘thinking moves’ have been identified by Ritchard, Church and Morrison (2015) as indicative of the type of thinking required to support (and assess) understanding; “capturing the heart and forming conclusions” (pg. 11) seems particularly relevant in this context. The Create phase has two aspects: creating to communicate learning and the creation of the prototype as part of the design process. The culmination of the juncture and inquiry process is the Share phase (‘presentation’ in ISP) where both ‘products’ of the inquiry process are shared with the ‘Inquiry Community’ of peers and teachers (Kuhlthau, Maniotes & Caspari, 2015, p. 58). This juncture requires higher-order thinking skills, articulated in the Critical and Creative thinking capability as analysing, synthesising and evaluating reasoning and procedures; and reflecting on thinking and processes (ACARA, 2017). This is a very important part of the inquiry process, as students are given the opportunity to share their expertise with the community, the success of which is likely to influence their attitude toward future inquiry projects (Stripling, 2010).

Juncture FourEvaluate

Integrated GID & DT Unit overview 4 – Lotte ten Hacken, 2017

Evaluation involves assessing student achievement of the learning goals and draws upon the ‘self-knowledge’ facet of understanding (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). This may include self and peer assessment, as well as teacher assessment using familiar criteria represented on an assessment rubric that targets the Australian curriculum content. This is indicative of the ‘assessment’ stage of the ISP. At the conclusion of the inquiry, the student is guided through a reflection process, reinforcing the breadth of the content learning achieved and highlighting the value of the inquiry process through which the student progressed (Kuhlthau, Maniotes & Caspari, 2015).

Powerfully, junctures three and four provide the potential for operating within Lupton’s (2010) Transformative GeSTE Window, with the ideas and prototypes able to be shared with ‘powerful’ members of the school community (such as the leadership team and the parents and citizens association) in order to challenge the status quo and open dialogue about learning environments and their impact on students’ learning (Lupton & Bruce, 2010). This is congruous with the idea of a “beautiful question…that  might serve as a catalyst to bring about change.” (Berger, 2014, p. 8). In the context of the Learning environments inquiry, this may result in a range of ideas such as: classrooms with more flexible furniture arrangements, designated zones quiet zones,  proposals for acoustic panelling to absorb noise, the installation of blinds or lobbying for improved air conditioning…the possibilities are endless (and are lead by the students!).

To conclude, the power and value of inquiry learning, with its insistence on questioning, critical and creative thinking and constructing new knowledge, is clear. As an educator, it is a great privilege to have influence over the development of skills and temperaments that will provoke our students to be positive agents for change in our society. Warren Berger (2014, p.6) posits: “To encourage or even allow questioning is to cede power – not something that is done lightly in hierarchical companies or in government organizations, or even in classrooms, where a teacher must be willing to give up control to allow for more questioning.”