I recently finished teaching my first-ever unit using anchor phenomena and inquiry in my middle school science classroom. I really enjoyed using this approach but it took some adjustment on my part. There were some challenges but I feel like it supported learning in my classroom more effectively than a traditional approach.
What does a traditional approach to middle school science look like?
In the traditional model, students copy or fill in notes, practice skills, take a quiz, then get more complexity and a lab that confirms what they already wrote down. It works—students can demonstrate mastery and do well on the test—but the concepts are handed to them rather than discovered.
Prior to this unit, I always taught in a traditional way. I would provide students with notes that they would fully copy or fill in missing blanks. Then, we would practice the necessary skills to meet the standard. I would give students the definitions of the necessary vocabulary they would need for the unit.
After a week, I would give students a quiz to assess their progress so far. I would extend their understanding of the concept by adding a little more complexity followed by more practice. I would add a lab in the unit somewhere that would reinforce what they copied in their notes to “prove” that it was accurate. Finally, I would give students a test to summarize the unit.
I do still think this traditional approach has merit for students. If the information is presented in a logical way and students participate, they can learn the necessary material to demonstrate mastery of the standards. They will do well on the test and probably be able to explain the primary concepts.
However, I think there is a better way – utilizing inquiry in middle school science.
What prompted the switch to inquiry?
When new state standards arrived, the topics changed—but so did the whole approach to teaching them. It took time to realize the standards weren't just asking for new content; they were asking students to build curiosity and discover concepts, which meant rethinking how the material was delivered.
When my state published our next set of science standards, I did what I imagine most science teachers did. They scanned their grade for the main topics they would be teaching now. I felt a bit disappointed for losing certain topics (genetics was one of my favorites in 7th grade) but was happy to see beefed-up chemistry standards. I noticed some standards that I had not previously taught and thought about how I might present those to students.
I also started looking for material to teach these standards (and even made some of my own that are in my TpT store). However, I missed the big idea of the standards. The whole approach to teaching these standards was changing as well.
Why is curiosity hard to build in middle schoolers?
Early in a teaching career, it takes years just to run the classroom confidently, so straying from what works feels risky. And middle schoolers are developmentally inward-focused—they rarely want to guess out loud. Curiosity is a powerful learning tool and a life skill, but it isn't something school naturally instills.
During my teacher preparation courses, I was introduced to new ways of teaching such as project-based learning and student-led learning. I found them intriguing and wished I had been taught that way. But, like many of you can probably empathize, it takes a while to get your feet under you in those first few years. I wanted to make a meaningful impact on the science knowledge of my students but I also needed to get through the necessary material.
After a few years of teaching, I gained the confidence to handle my classroom and really do the job of being an effective teacher. At that point, I was wary of straying too far from what was working (the traditional approach to teaching). I branched out to give my students more lab experiences that would strengthen their conceptual understanding of science phenomena.
While some students are naturally curious, I’m not sure it’s a typical trait of middle schoolers. As is developmentally-appropriate for their age, they are inward-focused and concerned with how others see them. They don’t usually want to put themselves out there to take a guess.
Curiosity is a powerful learning tool and also, I think, a valuable life skill. The switch to these new standards was trying to cultivate that by adding inquiry into middle school science.
I don’t think most people (and certainly not middle-schoolers) like asking a question and finding out there is not an immediate answer. If I got to the hardware store in need of a part to fix my porch door only to be told that they don’t know of a way to do it, I don’t feel excited about having to come up with a solution myself.
In the same way, students are used to us being the answer-givers. They want to know what they need to know and they don’t want to have to wait to find out the answer. And I can understand that. Curiosity is not a skill instilled in us through our schooling.
Sometimes, students will ask me a question for which I don’t know the answer. I tell, “Why don’t you go find out and tell me?” Guess how many times they came back the next day excitedly waving their hand to tell me the answer.
What is the student-led discovery and inquiry approach?
In the inquiry approach, students find answers and ideally ask the questions while the teacher facilitates. You present a phenomenon, let students propose and test ideas, and guide them toward accurate understanding—watching for misconceptions. Vocabulary and lectures come after students have built their own explanations.
In this new approach involving inquiry in middle school science, students are the ones who find answers and, ideally, are asking the questions. As teachers, we are the learning facilitators. We present students with phenomena and let them give their ideas. They come up with ways to test them. We help guide them towards an accurate understanding, watch for misconceptions, and help address them through science concepts.
After students have developed a strong understanding of the concepts and can give their own explanations, we introduce them to vocabulary. You can still use videos, PowerPoint lectures, and reinforcing activities at this point. But the key is that students are discovering the concepts for themselves.
How do you actually change your teaching style toward inquiry?
Start with an engaging phenomenon that a quick Google search won't answer. Give students learning experiences to discover the concept—no copying notes—then let them build and debate their own explanations before you formalize the vocabulary. Your role shifts from sage on the stage to learning facilitator.
When I first heard of this approach, my first thought was, “I have so much to teach in a year. How am I supposed to let my students discover the content for themselves?” This is where our role as “the sage on the stage” changes to being a learning facilitator. That has been a difficult change for me to embrace. I like being asked science questions and giving students answers. But, it’s not what is best way for all the students in the class to learn.
First, I find science phenomena that relate to the standard I am teaching. It should be engaging and not easily answerable by a Google search. That is the problem with my old “sage on the stage” approach – I was just replacing Google for students by giving them answers that they didn’t need to think about.
Next, I present them with learning experiences that let them discover the scientific concepts behind the phenomena. These activities do not involve them copying notes or looking up vocabulary. If students don’t have a base-of-knowledge to attach that information to, it is lost.
Then, students develop their own explanations for the phenomena. In an ideal situation, students would debate with each other over their explanations defending their reasoning. At this stage, it is not important to use correct terminology. My role during this time is to ask questions that students can answer to mold their explanations towards a solid understanding.
Finally, I use vocabulary terms, experiments, lectures, videos, or any other traditional approach to solidify their understanding. This is a great way to address any other misconceptions students may have about the content. You may even have other students addressing them in class. I think this is because students have taken a larger role in the ownership of their learning and they are proud when they can answer questions themselves.
What does an inquiry unit look like in practice?
For MS-LS1-8, the anchor phenomenon was a light bulb that looked purple but revealed red, green, and blue lights when moved. Students theorized why, explored a PhET color vision simulation and unlabeled eye diagrams, then built explanations that circled back to the phenomenon before a final assessment.
I just finished teaching my first unit this year in which I fully used the inquiry approach. This was for MS-LS1-8 concerning the nervous system and our sensory receptors to external stimuli. Here is how I taught it.
If you’d like to use this unit in your class, you can buy the MS-LS1-8 Sensory Receptors Complete Unit from my TpT Store!
My anchor phenomenon for this unit was a light bulb that appeared to be purple. When it moves, you can individual red, blue, and green lights. I showed students this phenomenon and asked them to come up with ideas for why this occurs. I helped them with some guiding questions such as, “Is there only one purple bulb in there, only red, blue, and green bulbs, or some combination of that?”
After giving students a chance to make some theories about what is happening in the anchor phenomenon, I introduce them to some learning experiences that will guide them toward the right answer. I really like this PhET color vision simulation for explaining how our eyes give us sight. Importantly, though, it doesn’t explain why you can only adjust the red, blue, and green color tabs. This gets students to ask additional questions.
Next, we look at drawings of the structures in the eye. I begin this by showing them unlabeled diagrams and having them make observations. This leads them to notice details that would have gone unnoticed if they had a labeled diagram. Then, I show them a diagram with the parts labeled to make connections with prior knowledge. Finally, we repeat this process with diagrams of the rods and cones in the back of the eye and their connection to the optic nerve.
While going through these activities, I try to refer back to the anchor phenomenon as often as possible. This keeps them engaged to find the answer and focuses the learning in the right direction. To further support all students, I summarize our findings through mini-reviews that act like notes.
After understanding the anchor phenomenon, we learn about the nervous system through sight experiments. Now that they understand how the eye works (on a conceptual level), they can explain why interesting phenomena occur. We then go further into analyzing parts of the brain and their function based on how our nerves connect them to our sense organs. At the end of the unit, I give students an assessment that pulls all of this information together and asks students to use this information to make more predictions based on evidence.
The MS-LS1-8 unit was my first using the inquiry approach. I felt like I got more engagement and participation. I encouraged my classes to take guesses and that went over well. I’m going to continue using this approach at times throughout the year. I think, like anything, the skills students need for an inquiry approach to middle school require practice and they will grow as we move through the content.