Thinking...
In science class, we have been a big fan of using a "road map" to structure the learning throughout our projects. This has allowed us to maintain control of our project in making sure our content standards are hit. In addition, it is very easy to manipulate student need to know lists to match the content that we need to teach and we can outline this process in a road map. Students and parents like road maps because they clearly lay out the activities and expectations in a formative way. Finally, road maps allow room for inquiry because student need to knows drive the teacher led road map...through manipulation. Is this best practice?
Inquiry is an interesting topic...mostly misunderstood by many teachers. In depth inquiry brings in a whole new discussion that is difficult to find common ground. The most successful educational experience I have had is the IChallengeU summer academy where high school students solve relevant problems for local companies. Students stay up late at night not being able to "shut down" on their projects. The emails we receive at 11:00 PM revolve around ideas...not help. IChallengeU has no road maps. It's here where we find what in depth inquiry is...it's real, not fake and not manipulated.
How might we take away the manipulation that can exist in our projects? In the past year, I have had great success in our IChallengeU and Academy programs with story share and captures that build into group and saturate protocols...all pointing towards the creation of insights. Insights are the key headlines and ideas that make connections and provide meaning to what we gather to solve relevant problems and issues. My hypothesis is that by providing a variety of resources and experiences for our students that lead to insights versus the completion of road maps, we create a much deeper level of in-depth inquiry. In addition, I bet their insights would match the manipulated content standards...only this time the authentic learning deepens the roots!
