Until this past week before viewing The Physics of Optics (http://www.learner.org/resources/ series126.html?pop=yes&pid=1414) I had a rather narrower interpretation of scaffolding and a broader interpretation of multidisciplinary. For whatever reason, I had come to the conclusion that scaffolding of knowledge should be approached on an almost daily basis. For example, I’d plan a daily lesson and attempt to weave scaffolding within that one day’s plan. But, after analyzing The Physics of Optics I realized that I was limiting the benefits of scaffolding and could make a greater impact on content delivery and retention if I design the lesson to scaffold across the unit – from one lesson into the next, across the span of several days. On that same token as I analyzed the physics lesson I also came to the conclusion that I had interpreted multidisciplinary too broadly. In fact, as a Biology teacher, I had developed the preconceived notion that in order for me to have a multidisciplinary lesson, it could not include another science content, i.e, physics, anatomy. I had developed the notion that interdisciplinary meant strictly science again some other content, English, history. But, WHY NOT?! Now, that I’ve had these two revelations I realize that I may have been limiting my and my students’ options for content development and transfer of new knowledge.
As I reflected over the past two weeks’ course work and contemplated how I could transfer it into my classroom, I remain curious about how to
develop a rubric of stages of development in those skills (types of inquiry)
determine what stage of development students need to be at in the chosen skills to be ready for progression to the next stage of independence (types of inquiry) (https://live.wilkes.edu/d2l/le/content/164269/viewContent/ 1630951/View)