1. Your answers to the questions posed in the modules (usually underneath the videos).
2. Comments, ideas, resources from the course materials or shared by other course participants that you found interesting or relevant to your own situation.

1. Your first entry should briefly introduce yourself. Tell your peers a bit about who you are.
2. Your second entry should briefly introduce your teaching context. Tell your peers a bit about your school, classroom and what technologies you have access to.
3. All following entries should clearly identify which module and which question they are linked to. The easiest way is to include the module number and the question in the title of the entry (see the example below). 
4. Make sure to include links, photos, videos, documents, etc. in your entries. 
5. Don't forget to add any interesting piece of content you come across on the course to your Learning Diary.

• Understand the steps & methodology of inquiry-based learning
• Experience inquiry in life sciences as an adult learner (by completing one or more activities)
• Identify and reflect on the steps followed along your inquiry path
• Compare your own practice with a given example

• Amount of yeast-water mixture should be the same everywhere.
• The containers have the same size.
• The balloons are the same.
• Placing on the pipes.
• The temperature is constant and constant.
• Have the blends done properly.

Self-reflection tool.

• What was the aim of the class?
• How did I deliver?
• How did students react?
• How can I improve?

1. How can you motivate your students at the beginning of the class?
2. What can be the reason for equipment not being written in the lab record?
3. Why should students start with tasks 2 – 3 – 4? *

1. What was the teacher’s role while students worked?
2. What was the students’ role during their work?

1. What can you say about the activity evaluation (from the point of view of general study-skills and later Chemistry)?
2. What do you think about students‘ hypotheses? Would the hypotheses of your students be different?

1. Why do you think it’s important that students were asked to make their own general conclusion from video/text?

1. What was the aim of the final revision?

1. Warm-up (could involve introductions or an icebreaker game)
2. Stimulus (we will use a video clip later in the module, but it can range from a newspaper article to a photograph)
3. Private reflections (thinking time on stimulus)
4. Question creation (individually developing a question related to a stimulus)
5. Question-airing (collaborating in separate groups to describe the generated questions; the most relevant question from those generated within the group can be picked by consensus)
6. Question-choosing (sorting and classifying the questions generated by all groups as philosophical or otherwise; we will use a quadrant to do this; one philosophical question is chosen by the whole class on a vote)
7. First thoughts (on the question chosen by students in the class)
8. Inquiry (students may sit in a circle and inquire on the question while the teacher acts as a facilitator)
9. Last words
10. Review and evaluation of the process/content

• The P4C Co-operative: Teacher's Guide
• PhilosophyIreland: P4C Class
• SAPERE: Philosophy for Children, Colleges, Communities
• Oxfam: Philosophy for Children Teacher's Guide

1. Preparing for progression

1. Sharing the text (stimulus)

1. Private reflections (think time)

1. Choosing questions

1. Question-airing

1. Inquiry

1. Last words

• are not answered through scientific investigation or accumulation of factual knowledge and information
• are open to examination, further questioning and inquiry
• look at meaning, truth, value, knowledge and reality

For example, the question “How does the brain function when we learn?” can be given a settled answer that we discover by scientific research. “How has education changed?” invites historical analysis. “What subjects are taught in Irish schools?” is answered by collecting information about the school system in Ireland. “Does student inquiry lead to improved Leaving Cert results?” requires empirical research.Philosophical questions such as “What does it mean to understand something?” and “How do we know what we know?” are answered in a different way. They cannot be given settled answers by gathering empirical facts, consulting expert opinions or doing calculations. These questions arise even when we have all the settled knowledge. “Philosophy attempts to clarify and illuminate unsettled, controversial issues that are so generic that no scientific discipline is equipped to deal with them” (Matthew Lipman, 1988). No matter how much information is gathered about what happens when we learn, this will not be enough to answer our question “What does it mean to understand something?”Philosophical or ethical questions that arise in science or genetic engineering are problematic and contestable. When does a human being begin? GATTACA/Bioethics raises questions that address fundamental issues and beliefs and require complex thinking rather than empirical/scientific research/experiments to answer. When we take a philosophical approach to these questions, we are not trying to get settled answers for students but to develop new perspectives and alternative ideas so they can try make sense of perplexing issues that will confront them in the science course. Using philosophy that constantly questions assumptions will help students develop as scientists.

• Questioning – asking good questions to provide a focus for the inquiry.
• Reasoning – requesting reasons or evidence to support arguments and judgements.
• Defining – clarifying concepts through making connections, distinctions and comparisons.
• Speculating – generating ideas and alternative viewpoints through imaginative thinking.
• Testing for truth – gathering information, evaluating evidence, examples and counterexamples.
• Expanding ideas – sustaining and extending lines of thought and argument.
• Summarising – abstracting key points or general rules from a number of ideas or instances.

• Thinking time – encourage pauses for thought or some moments of quiet meditation on a topic. Remember to provide at least 3 seconds thinking time after you have asked a question and 3 seconds thinking time after a child gives an answer.
• Think—pair—share – allow individual thinking time for a question, invite discussion of the question with a partner, then open up for class discussion.
• Ask follow-ups – ask students to extend or qualify what they said by asking questions that challenge their thinking, such as ’Why?’, ‘Do you agree or disagree?’, ’Can you say more?’, ’Can you give an example?’, ’Describe how you arrived at that answer’.
• Withhold judgement – respond to student answers in a non-evaluative way, e.g. a positive but neutral response such as ‘Thank you’, ‘Ok’, ‘That’s interesting’, ‘A-ha’, ‘I see’.
• Invite the whole group to respond – encourage a response from the whole group by saying things such as; ‘How many people agree/disagree with that point of view?’ (hands/thumbs up, down or to side). You can also ask questions such as ‘Having heard that, what questions might we ask?’
• Ask for a summary – promote active listening by asking for a summary of what has been said, e.g. ‘Could you summarise Kim’s point?’, ‘Can you explain what Jane has just said?’, ‘Can you tell me the arguments so far?’
• Play devil’s advocate – challenge students to give reasons for their views by presenting opposing points of view, or by asking students to be devil’s advocates, e.g., ‘Who can think of a different point of view / an argument against that?’
• Invite a range of responses – model open-mindedness by inviting students to consider different viewpoints: ‘There is no single correct answer to this question. I want you to consider alternatives’.
• Encourage student questioning – invite students to ask their own questions before/during and/or after discussion. ’Does anyone have a question about what has been said?’, etc.

Of course we keep some notes in order to be able to continue. In almost all cases the students do not understand how the time is, they are almost always relaxed and happy to be able to make such a discussion, I try to be neutral, but at some point in the end I have to mention my own opinion pointing out that this is my view that does not mean that it is the right one, you should do your own research and take your own view, because every point of view is unique and subjective.

• Practitioner Handbook
• Useful Philosophy Websites
• Planning for P4C Template

• Poetic forms
• Expressive forms
• Transactional forms

• Achievement scores
• Attitudes towards science
• Scientific process skills
• Conceptual understanding
• Scientific literacy
• Self-responsible learning
• Argumentation skills
• The use of multiple modes of representation
• Peer interaction
• Critical thinking and problem solving skills.

• Letter Instruction
• Letter 1 - Student A 6th grade
• Letter 2 - Student B 6th grade
• Letter 3 - Student C 6th grade
• Poem 1 - Student A 5th grade
• Poem 2 - Student A 6th grade
• Poem 3 - Student A 7th grade
• Poem 4 - Student B 6th grade

• Science journals could be evaluated with respect to different themes, such as science vocabulary, accuracy, organization, content, model representation, self-reflection, etc. Find some examples of rubrics with which to evaluate science journals in Appendix A, Appendix B, and Appendix C.
• Letters could be evaluated with respect to cognitive actions, such as observation, measurement, comparison, analogy, clarification, claim, cause/effect, induction/generalization, deduction, investigation design and argumentation. Find a rubric to be used for text analysis of letters in Appendix D.
• There are various templates one can use to write lab reports. In the science writing heuristic (SWH) approach, students use a template as in Appendix E. This template could be evaluated with respect to different themes, such as (a) the quality of questions, claims, and evidence, (b) the relationship between claim and evidence, (c) the quality of the argument, etc. Find a rubric with which to evaluate the student template of SWH in Appendix F.
• Poems could be evaluated with respect to different themes, such as form, word usage, poetic elements, language conventions, effort, illustration, etc. Find a rubric with which to evaluate poems in Appendix G.

I will use the third example because it is closer to the ages I teach. I think it was a well-planned process, I think the teams were relatively large in terms of students and there were some problems in conducting. Teams should not exceed 5 students.

• McLeares Rubrics

• Baker, W. P. et al. (2008). Writing-to-learn in the inquiry-science classroom: Effective strategies from middle school science and writing teachers. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 81(3), 105-108.
• Balgopal, M. M., & Wallace, A. M. (2009). Decisions and dilemmas: Using writing to learn activities to increase ecological literacy. The Journal of Environmental Education, 40(3), 13-26.
• Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 29-58.7
• Britton, J., Burgess, T., Martin, N., McLeod, A., & Rosen, H. (1975). The development of writing abilities (11–18). London: Macmillan.
• Connally, P. (1989). Writing and the ecology of learning. In P. Connally & T. Vilardi (Eds.), Writing to learn mathematics and science (pp. 1-15). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
• Freisinger, R. A. (1980). Cross-disciplinary writing workshops: Theory and practice. College English, 42, 154-166.
• Fulwiler, T., & Young, A. (Eds.). (1982). Language connections: Writing and reading across the curriculum. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers.
• Gunel, M., Hand, B., & Gunduz, S. (2006). Comparing student understanding of quantum physics when embedding multimodal representations into two different writing formats: Presentation format versus summary report format. Science Education, 90(6), 1092-1112.
• Gunel, M., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2007). Writing for learning in science: A secondary analysis of six studies. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(4), 615-637.
• Keys, C. W. (1999). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83(2), 115-130.
• Parker, R. P., & Goodkin, V. (1987). The consequences of writing: Enhancing learning in the disciplines. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook Publishers Inc.
• Rivard, L. P. (1994). A review of writing to learn in science: Implications for practice and research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 969-983.
• Sampson, V., Enderle, P., Grooms, J., & Witte, S. (2013). Writing to learn by learning to write during the school science laboratory: Helping middle and high school students develop argumentative writing skills as they learn core ideas. Science Education, 97(5), 643-670.
• Uzoglu, M. (2010). Ogrenme amaçlı yazma aktivitelerinin kullanımının ilköğretim seviyesinde kuvvet ve madde ünitesini öğrenmeye etkisi [Effects of using writing to learn activities on learning force and matter units in the primary education level] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ataturk University, Erzurum, Turkey.
• Walshe, R. D. (1987). The learning power of writing. The English Journal, 76(6), 22-27.
• Yore, L. D. (2000). Enhancing science literacy for all students with embedded reading instruction and writing-to-learn activities. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5(1), 105-122.