Learning Log 4

                               Part #1

A  particularly important  DESIGN ELEMENT when planning for Inquiry based learning within a School learning commons  for a teacher librarian is collaboration  with classroom teachers/stakeholders and students for setting the stage for  inquiry based learning and teaching:Major considerations are listed here Collaborative Plan and teaching for Inquiry Without a connection there can be no cooperation and coordination for ultimate collaboration relationship and it would not be possible to have a greater input in reaching beyond the learning commons.

 School Librarian Collaboration chart

Of the 6 points of inquiry  model;I feel the TL has the most input on the investigate and construct phase. The key component of investigate phase is the TL role in the curation of  diverse resources that assist in inquire based learning that address/make connections to the bigger picture beyond the superficial and differential learning needs for a particular  grade  so their Investigation go deeper in being able to explore higher order questions and  suggest connections to their lives and possible tools to assist.(field trips,emails;Skype,experts contacts ) TL's can be a bridge  to IB resources that classroom teachers are unaware of and knowledgeable in the variety  and best choice of formats.

TL's  can make a difference toward tweaking /redesign to IBL in construct phase to bring the new learning beyond the superficial to higher order thinking by scaffolding and assisting classroom teacher in constructing their understanding to spark the motivation to apply/analysis, synthesize and evaluate and build upon their increasing knowledge to more abstract concepts making broad connections; seeing patterns; recognizing how it affects us and is a timely and is reoccurring throughout time. Construct phase  with intention for higher order thinking leads to critical thinking Dear Teachers:The learning Commons and the future of learning  and TL's can take the initiative with the classroom teacher. TL's   can as best as able within the space arrange a variety of physical spaces that are conductive to collaboration/discussion from cozy areas with pillows to larger groupings with accessibility to plug ins and movable furniture to rearrange.

The aspects of Inquiry design/redesign that I find the most rewarding are being able to design for students to be more in charge of their learning co creators/co constructors and the cycle of  building upon each others ideas that drives higher order thinking/questions and to be available to intervene  only when needed so students don't became frustrated or bored especially while online as stated here :Wondering plus online inquiry  I appreciate the Inquiry leveling provided in this article as a talking point with teachers from the most structured-Modeled to Structured to Guided and the  least guidance being Open inquiry. It would be rewarding to be a facilitator of students arriving at a newer/broader understanding/appreciation and connection to themselves in their learning!

The challenging aspect which I found while doing the first curation assignment is locating/ sourcing out appropriate resources that spark wonder and are suited to particular students abilities and curriculum. often many digital resources ; and most database bundles like BC ERAC come with a subscription price based on population and must be  bought into by the principal/board and be justified for the school budgeting. As well it is not easy to find resources that are diverse and reach all students equally. Our school being private could justify the database cost.
Also the physical limitations of the learning commons space in accommodating a range of student with furniture designed for collaboration/work spaces and social groupings for brainstorming etc;  is a challenge.Our library is small so bigger groups could not use it but every classroom has a library space.

Part 2

I choose to compare a physical education inquiry model  to  the Ontario  librari associations model because this is an area that i have taught and enjoy and I think may be overlooked in the Inquiry based learning process.  This is  the link here to Andy a physical educator is found here: Physical Education Inquiry

I compared with the OLA inquiry model here:

These 2 inquiry models both contain the encompassing IBP learning concepts and have many  similarities as well as a few differences .They both endorse a non linear freedom to go back and forth as well as having a pre-inquiry (Phys-ed) and exploring stage (OLA) that sets the planning  for Inquiry based learning to happen with making connection to prior knowledge and formulating engaging questions leading towards deeper learning and proof of learning through demonstrating skills/understanding(phys-Ed) or creating a product and then transferring learning/taking action.

The Phys Ed model mentions beliefs/values/experiences in the first pre phase;Starting the Inquiry Journey stage which  affects a students going further in learning and of note for inquiry learning (girls may hold biased beliefs about how they view themselves as scientist or being physically active) Taking the think time to glean as much as possible about your students helps set the stage for  inquiry learning(differentiated) and who needs particular scaffolding for successful learning.(pairing with stronger student; softer ball etc;)

The phys-Ed model makes a distinction with the stages of assessment with the pre-assessment opportunities gathered from  pre phase (beliefs etc;) and phase one-Introduction by observing for connection to prior knowledge and  stimulating questioning etc to the phase 2 formative assessment opportunities in the Learning experience stage 2 where it is more evident with ongoing scaffolding to assist skills/understanding observed in movement to the summative assessment opportunities at phase 4, Culmination after deeper learning opportunities to observe improved skills and understanding. In phys-ed with observation it is easier to assess skills and understanding that sometimes may go undetected in other subject areas. Intervention at the right time is key.

The OLA model notes assessment  of product and process (meta cognition; not noted in Phys-Ed model) in the last stage of Creating. Allowing students to understand how they learn and the process using the  inquiry model ; I believe is key so they can find themselves in the process and continually reflect and move towards an inquiry mindset. As a TL these models should be shared with students not just staff so they can begin to incorporate these stages as a life long skill for deeper learning and not accepting the superficial only.

A noted difference between the two models  is the OLA includes an add- on of affective stages of how students feel throughout the stages with specific examples from apprehension at the Exploring stage to satisfaction at the end Creating stage. I think this can be applied to the phys- ed model too especially for some students who have received negative feedback on their athletic abilities/ bodies shaming etc and  students need to be taught that these feelings are normal throughout the process ad teachers can support them so students do not give up under frustration. 

The phys-ed model incorporated reflection throughout which the OLA does not which is a key component for students and staff to have think time and  reflect in order to transfer/incorporate a new understanding into meaningful reaction/action.

I would suggest that in the Phys-ed model I would plan for drawing out the broader concepts of team work, determination, perseverance etc that are noted in  the deeper learning phase 3 at the pre inquiry stage with scenarios; visual hooks;(Terry Fox picture) and guided questions if needed then after the learning experiences draw upon their new knowledge and application to themselves and society.

 In visual representation; the OLA I noted how it leveled the 3 stages within the stages  in a circle  therefore providing greater guidance in the process but should be used as a guideline and the phys-ed simply noted characteristics with  freedom of movement indicated with arrows in a box.

This exercise allowed me to synthesize Inquiry Based Process information and view the similarities of inquiry models within the broader concepts of Inquiry based learning. 

Resources;

"UBC Library | Ezproxy Login". Journals-Sagepub-Com.Ezproxy.Library.Ubc.Ca, 2019, https://journals-sagepub-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/doi/pdf/10.1177/0031721714557452.

"UBC Library | Ezproxy Login". Search-Proquest-Com.Ezproxy.Library.Ubc.Ca, 2019, https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/docview/1012395477/fulltextPDF/6382A63083174D13PQ/1?accountid=14656.

Resources;
"UBC Library | Ezproxy Login". Journals-Sagepub-Com.Ezproxy.Library.Ubc.Ca, 2019, https://journals-sagepub-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/doi/pdf/10.1177/0031721714557452.

"UBC Library | Ezproxy Login". Search-Proquest-Com.Ezproxy.Library.Ubc.Ca, 2019, https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/docview/1012395477/fulltextPDF/6382A63083174D13PQ/1?accountid=14656.

"PYP PE With Andy". PYP PE With Andy, 2019, https://www.pyppewithandy.com/.

Accessola.Org, 2019, https://www.accessola.org/web/Documents/OLA/Divisio