A presentation given in a doctoral class at Nova Southeastern University on Instructional Leadership, July 6, 2012.

1. Formation through
Inductive Thinking
A Lesson Strategy for a Conceptual
Curriculum

2. Where do ideas come from?

3. Sources of ideas
 Sensory learning – using our senses to explore and
arrive at knowledge or understanding (Amorino, 2007).
 Constructive activity – making connections between what
we perceive (Amorino, 2007; Hesse, 1989).
 Using open-ended problem solving – creating solutions
(Wang, et al., 2009).
 When people make generalizations about a set of data
(Bennet&Rolheiser, 2008).

4. Can we recreate conditions which
provoke conceptual thinking?

5. The Inquiry Cycle
INQUIRY
(Asking)
REFLECTION ACTION
(Thinking) (Doing)
(International Baccalaureate, 2008)

6. Inquiry uses concept formation for
learning
 Learners are presented with a data set
 Learners examine the data set items for common
attributes
 Learners are asked to generalize among items in the
data set, coming up with ideas of how these items are
connected and what general idea they express or
exemplify
(Bilica& Flores, 2009; International Baccalaureate, 2008;
Reid, 2011)

7. Application of Inductive Strategy
 Science inquiry lessons
 Students examine facts, data or visual information and
form generalizations about observations.
 Generalizations are based on critical attributes of the
data set.
 In science, teachers use an inductive method for
students to form scientific concepts
(Reid, 2011)

8. Can this strategy transfer to
subjects other than science?

9. Inductive Strategy in subjects
other than Science
 Teachers can use complex and realistic problems in their
lessons
 Complex thinking is independent of language
 Scaffolding can be used to teach students how to think
inductively
(Felder & Prince, 2007)

10. Inductive Thinking across the
curriculum
 Taking exemplars from the content area and using them
as data sets
 Using analytical skill to reach generalizations about the
data sets
 Data sets can be visual, text-based, or actual objects
(Hesse, 1989; Reid, 2011; Tishman, 2008)

11. Robertson‟s Process in Lessons
using inductive thinking strategy
 Starts with EXPLORATION where teacher engages
students in activities designed to set up understanding of
a concept.
 In this phase, students draw generalizations from a data
set.
(Robertson, 2007)

12. Robertson‟s Process phase 2
 Phase 2 of the process is EXPLANATION, where
students use activities to explain the new concept.
 This phase is where the teacher introduces the students
to the lexicon related to the concept, the vocabulary that
they will need to discuss that concept.
 For example, we using the termsinquiry, generalizations,
questioning, data set to talk about concept formation
using inductive thinking.
(Robertson, 2007)

13. Robertson‟s Process phase 3
 The third phase of the process is ELABORATION, where
students are engaged in more activities to reinforce
understanding of the concept.
 Here the teacher may present more examples, some that
are examples of the concepts, and others that are non-
examples.
 This is used to clarify and cement understanding of the
characteristic attributes of the concept.
(Robertson, 2007)

14. An example using literature
 PHASE 1 EXPLORATION The teacher gives students a
data set consisting of different extracts from fiction and
asks the question, “What makes a piece of literature
literary?”
 Students then have to draw on prior learning, and the
data set, to come up with generalizations.
 Generalizations are written down for future use.
(Hesse, 1989)

15. An example using literature,
phase 2
 In phase 2 EXPLANATION, the teacher may ask the students
to do the following:
 Compare and contrast the extracts with previous literature that
students think are literary
 Come up with a list of characteristics of what literary pieces of
text are
 Explain why one of the extracts or more is literary or non-
literary based on the characteristics
 Justify choices by illustrating from specific examples
 The teacher may teach literature terms while students engage
in these activities

16. An example using literature,
phase 3
 In ELABORATION, the teacher may present other text
types such as travel writing, diary entries, greeting cards,
etc mixed with literary text types such as poetry, short
fiction, vignettes
 The activity may ask students to come up with attributes
of the concept “literary” using these new data sets.
 Interspersed with these activities might be clarification of
the concept using other strategies such as cooperative
learning, academic controversy, scaffolding to reinforce
the concept formation.

17. Summary
• What for?
• How?
Concept
Formation • Process
Using
inductive • Integration
thinking
• Impact

18. Classroom Impact
 Integration (through concepts and skills) with other
subject areas
 Form original ideas
 Improve conceptual thinking
 Discover and engage in learning
 Meaning-oriented approach
 Self-directed learning
 Student is at the center of the lesson
(Amorino, 2007; Bilica& Flores, 2009; Felder & Prince, 2007; Hesse, 1989;
Reid, 2011)

19. References
Amorino, J. (2007). Classroom educators learn more about teaching and learning
from the arts. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(3), 190-195.
Bennet, B. &Rolheiser, C. (2008). Beyond Monet: The artful science of
instructional integration. Toronto, Ontario: Bookation.
Bilica, K. & Flores, M. (F 2009). Inductive and deductive science thinking; A model
for lesson development. Science Scope, 36-41.
Brown-Jeffy, S. & Cooper, J. E. (2011). Toward a conceptual framework of
culturally revelant pedagogy: An overview of the conceptual and theoretical
literature. Teacher Education Quarterly, Winter, 65-84.
Felder, R. & Prince, M. (O 2007). The case for inductive teaching. Prism, 17(2),
55.
Hesse, D. (N 1989). Canon and critical thinking. English Journal, 78(7), 16-22.

20. Heubner, T. (N 2008). Balancing the concrete and the abstract. Educational
Leadership, 66(3), 86-87.
International Baccalaureate (2008). From Principles Into Practice. Cardiff, Wales:
Author.
Reid, B. (J 2011). The concept attainment strategy. The Science Teacher, 51-55.
Robertson, B. (J 2007). Getting past „inquiry versus content.‟ Educational
Leadership, 64(4), 67-70.
Tishman, S. (F 2008). The object of their attention. Educational Leadership, 65(5),
44-46.
Wang, J., Wang, Y., Tai, H. & Chen, W. (2009). Investigating the effectiveness of
inquiry-based instruction on students with different prior knowledge and
reading abilities. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,
8, 801-820.