Running head: Journal Article Critique 1

Journal Article Critique

Delia Pauley

Ivy Tech Community College

Journal Article Critique 2

I read the article, Literacy learning and scientific inquiry: Children respond

(Ruggiano-Schmitd, P. & Gillen, S. & Colabufo-Zollo, T. & Stone, R., 2002). The article

asked the question; How do students with special needs in literacy learning respond to

scientific inquiry (Ruggiano-Schmitd, et all, 2002)? They determined that these

students exhibited a greater focus, more positive interactions, and a sustained interest

(Ruggiano-Schmitd, et all, 2002).

The article was a summary and response to a study done in 1993. The study

observed and documented the effects of science inquiry on 2nd grade classrooms in an

inner city school district. The study focused on special needs students response to this

style of learning environment. The authors believe that scientific inquiry is a natural

way of learning and is based on the constructivist approach. This approach believes that

children are scientists who experiment, solve problems, and discover how the world

functions (Ruggiano-Schmitd, et all, 2002). They follow the same thought that we are

learning in class, that children control their own learning. They believe learning happens

best when, after drawing on previous experience, students are connected to new

experiences and encouraged to ask questions, make predictions and discover (Ruggiano-

Schmitd, et all, 2002).

The focus of the study was to teach three second grade classrooms a science unit

entitled, My Back Yard, using the methods of scientific inquiry. Within the study they

focused their attention on six students with learning disabilities, and tracked their

progress. Teachers changed their teaching methods for this unit. Rather than filling out

practice sheets they used blank paper to record observations. Rather than labeling a

drawing, children would be asked to study and draw their own replications. And rather
Journal Article Critique 3

than the teacher choosing the books to read, the children were encouraged to explore and

find their own material. Children were aloud to find their topics for research within the

big idea, they were encouraged to generate their own questions and the teacher would act

as a facilitator providing the framework and materials for the inquiry. (Ruggiano-

Schmitd, et all, 2002).

After the teachers activated the background information from the students, the

students talked, formed questions, and researched. They read materials provided in class,

based on their interests. They worked in pairs and in groups to investigate further and

draw conclusions from their investigations. Their work was displayed on KWLQ chart to

organize their thoughts and help them connect their investigation to the big idea. At the

end of the study the groups presented their investigation and conclusions to the class.

The teachers, at the conclusion of the study, compared the students academic

performance to past performance. The study proved a few very important findings. First,

The combination of reading, writing, listening, and speaking throughout the science unit

enabled the children to maintain focus, develop relationships, and understand the major

concepts of the unit (Ruggiano-Schmitd, et all, 2002). The degree that they were able to

do these things was far more than they had been able to do in the past. Second, because

they were practicing the language arts in a sharing community of inquiry, children had

many opportunities to develop their literacy learning (Ruggiano-Schmitd, et all, 2002).

Again, they exceeded their literacy skills in a way they had not done before. In addition

to these findings these children were incorporated into the class more socially than ever

before.
Journal Article Critique 4

The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) position statement on

Scientific Inquiry recommends that teachers implement approaches to teaching science

that cause students to question and explore and to use those experiences to raise and

answer questions (NSTA, 2004). In summary, they said that teachers should guide and

facilitate students as they negotiate meaning. They encourage teachers to provide

environments that give students time, space and resources to learn through inquiry. The

NSTA says, the goal of inquiry is that students will be able to learn how to identify and

ask appropriate questions, design and conduct investigations, learn how to draw

conclusions and think critically and communicate their results as part of scientific

inquiry. Finally, the NSTA goal of teaching in an inquiry classroom is that students

understand that science involves asking questions, and as they ask questions it can lead to

new discoveries to investigate. This process of scientific inquiry is central to learning

science; the evidence they collect is important and can change their perceptions about the

world. They want students to understand how to be skeptical of assessing their own work

and the work of others as they learn how to become logical as they seek explanations.

The study in the article followed the guidelines of the NSTA for science inquiry.

Our text says, Students learn by examining what they think, investigating authentic

questions, comparing their findings to what others think, and then negotiating their new,

deepened understanding (Ruggiano-Schmitd, et all, 2002). This study proved this to be

true and more. It answered some of the questions that I have had throughout the semester

about scientific inquiry and students who are on the far ends of the spectrum of learning.

The article chronicled how each of these special needs children responded to scientific

inquiry in the classroom. It was very encouraging to read, not only how the students
Journal Article Critique 5

responded academically, but also how they were more motivated and encouraged

throughout the unit study. Students who never participated in classroom discussion were

fully engaged in this study. One of these students had a ton of background knowledge

before the study began. Prior to this study, he played by himself and seemed unfocused

on instruction. As the teacher engaged the students to find out what they knew, it was

clear that this student understood the concepts. The other children recognized this and he

became a leader for the unit. This helped his motivation and self-esteem, which engaged

him in the class and the study, that much more. In addition to this, he was now playing

with the students on the playground.

The five other special needs students had different stories, but all of them engaged

more and learned more throughout the study. The classes that participated all showed an

increase in math, reading and writing in addition to science. I think that one of the

biggest take-aways from the study was the change in the classrooms social environment.

The inclusion of the special needs students happened naturally through the group

environment. This built leadership in the students who helped them, and also encouraged

the special needs students, making them feel part of the class. The study was small, but it

was a great motivator for me. Im always concerned about the students who struggle. I

wanted to see proof that scientific inquiry could work with the outliers of the class.

As a teacher, I admit I have a little bit of apprehension in the process of how to

make this work. Im a natural planner, having an order and a process for everything I do.

However, I do see how you can prepare a broad plan for a unit like this. I also think, the

more you do science inquiry, the easier the process becomes. No matter the difficulty, I
Journal Article Critique 6

find in beginning of the process, I love the outcomes that Ive been reading about. I think

it is worth the effort. I learned from this article that science inquiry is beneficial for all

students.
Journal Article Critique 7

References

National Science Teachers Association NSTA. (2004). NSTA position statement.

Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/inquiry.aspx

Norton-Meier, L. & Hand, B., & Hockenberry, L., & Wise, K. (2008). Questions claims

and evidence. The important place of argument in childrens science writing.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Ruggiano-Schmitd, P. & Gillen, S. & Colabufo-Zollo, T. & Stone, R. (2002). Literacy

learning and scientific inquiry: Children respond. The Reader Teacher, Vol. 55, No. 6.

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20205096?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents