BREAKING AWAY FROM
THE STANDARD TEACHING FORMAT

An Action Research Report

Matt Bauder, 1997

Published here by permission of the author

---

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

For my action research project I wanted to find a way to break away from "the standard teaching format"often employed in science classes. This format involves lecture and discussion for the first 20-45 minutes of a 75-minute class, followed by a lab activity from the text. I decided to have my Grade 9 destreamed science/math class work in teams to design (at least partially) their own experiment.

I had 5 goals in attempting this teaching strategy.

1. As mentioned above, to break away from the standard science teaching format I found myself routinely falling into.
2. To improve learning by allowing students to do some "real" science through developing and testing their own hypothesis (i.e., moving from "teacher-directed" to "teacher-guided" learning).
3. For fun! A change in the routine.
4. To improve teamwork skills.
5. To boost the students’ confidence in their ability to apply knowledge and skills to problem-solving.

THE ACTIVITY

Each student was assigned to a team of three "scientists" (with one group as a team of four). I stacked the teams with at least one high ability student (designated the team leader), and two other students I felt would work well together. The role of the team leader was to ensure that each member as responsible for a certain task (e.g., recording hypotheses or observations) and that the group report was finished and handed in on time.

The class was given a list of five different compounds and their chemical formulas. From this list the teams were to hypothesize which two substances should be mixed to produce hydrogen gas, which two should be mixed to produce oxygen gas, and which two should be mixed to produce carbon dioxide gas. Once the teams had carried out a certain reaction, they were to use the burning splint, glowing splint, and limewater tests (which they had read about, and we discussed briefly) to determine if they had produced the desired gas. If not, the team had to formulate a new hypothesis and carry out a new experiment. We did the reaction and test for hydrogen gas together as a class. I had also given the class a very brief introduction to word and chemical equations so that the students could predict which compounds, when mixed, should produce the desired gas. On the second day of the activity, my associate and I decided to add the cobalt chloride paper test for water vapour as one of the experimental components.

THE GROUP REPORTS

Each team was to submit a written group report on its investigations. I outlined what information to include in the report and the format I wished to be used in the write-up. The teams were to answer four discussion questions, including suggestions for how they could improve their experiments. I also asked them to answer two group evaluation questions and to sign their names on the report. The teams were promised a "Nobel Prize" for the best paper.

I had some difficulty deciding on how to evaluate the reports. Should I specify a marking scheme looking for many specific details (university-style), or should I look more for items like following report-writing instructions, and then give a subjective grade on how well I thought the experiment and report were done? I opted for the latter, feeling that Grade 9’s would be more likely to read and appreciate a mark and a short comments paragraph on an "official" grading sheet. Each team was also given a mark for its work as a group. This evaluation procedure was a welcome improvement in efficiency for me (in fact, another action research project could be "How to improve my marking speed while maintaining or improving feedback").

GENERAL COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT

I was really impressed with the improvement in quality of these reports compared with earlier ones. I wondered if the improvement was attributed to strong team leaders in each group which pushed the other members for quality, if the students were motivated by the promise of a prize, or if the students had a sense of pride in being part of a team and were therefore proud of their team’s work. It was probably a combination of these factors. When I handed the reports back, I mentioned how pleased I was with their work. The kids seemed to beam from ear to ear.

In this teaching experiment, like all experiments, there were some surprises. The activity took longer than I expected, and it was difficult to try and monitor everything that was happening in the classroom at one time (I’m glad my associate was there to support me!). In the future, I’d like to be better prepared with very specific instructions for the activity and the report. I would also like to try to minimize the number of different activities occurring at once in the classroom, perhaps, as my associate suggested, by having all the groups work on one particular reaction at a time. This would allow me to focus more on observing how well the students worked as groups, and less on trying to monitor all the different activities.

There is no question that this was a more exciting way for the students to learn about the tests for "mystery gases."The biggest drawback I see is that it took at least twice as long to cover the same material. For this reason, and to prevent boredom with a certain routine, I would not use this particular teaching strategy with every lab in the Grade 9 course. However, having seen the quality of the work the students produced, and having read their feedback comments, I believe it was certainly worth the effort this time. I achieved the five goals I set out for.

SOME STUDENT COMMENTS

I asked the students how they liked working as part of a team to design their own experiment, and whether they felt they learned more or less this way compared to doing a lab out of the textbook.

• "I enjoyed working with other people making up our own experiments."
• "I liked working on a team better than just looking at the experiments in a book. I feel we learned more this way because we did the experiments."
• "Yes, I liked working in groups. It was fun. And I learned a lot more (now I know how to make carbon dioxide)."
• "I really liked working on a team to design my own experiment. It was fun, and good to work with different people this time. I didn’t like, though, being the team’s leader."
• "It was fun working on a team to design our own experiment with people I wouldn’t have. I learned more this way."
• "Working on a team and designing your own experiment is more fun than just reading out of a textbook. I learned more because I had to do it myself. It wasn’t all set up for me. I think this kind of work is much better."
• "I like working out our own experiments because you can make mistakes which enables you to learn more."
• "I liked this activity and I thought it was fun. It took more thinking than just reading it out of the book."

---