ay-thesis-final_april-2013.pdf
TRANSCRIPT
-
TEACHERS UNDERSTANDINGS OF INQUIRY AND REPORTED
USE OF SCIENTIFIC PRACTICES: A SURVEY OF
NSTA CONFERENCE ATTENDEES
By
Ashley M. Young
B.A. Wheaton College, 2007
M.S. University of Maine, 2011
A THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science in Teaching
The Graduate School
The University of Maine
May 2013
Advisory Committee:
Daniel K. Capps, Assistant Professor of Science Education, Advisor
Jonathan T. Shemwell, Assistant Professor of Science Education and Cooperating
Assistant Professor of Physics
Craig A. Mason, Professor of Education & Applied Quantitative Methods
-
ii
THESIS ACCEPTANCE STATEMENT
On behalf of the graduate committee for Ashley M. Young I affirm this
manuscript is the final and accepted thesis. Signatures of all committee members are on
file with the Graduate School at the University of Maine, 42 Stodder Hall, Orono, Maine.
Daniel K. Capps, PhD Date
-
LIBRARY RIGHTS STATEMENT
In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced
degree at the University of Maine, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available
for inspection. I further agree that permission for fair use copying of this thesis for
scholarly purposes may be granted by the Librarian. It is understood that any copying or
publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written
permission.
Signature:
Date:
-
TEACHERS UNDERSTANDINGS OF INQUIRY AND REPORTED
USE OF SCIENTIFIC PRACTICES: A SURVEY OF NSTA
CONFERENCE ATTENDEES
By Ashley Young
Thesis Advisor: Dr. Daniel K. Capps
An Abstract of the Thesis Presented
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Master of Science in Teaching
May 2013
Although national standards call for teaching science through inquiry, many
teachers do not understand what inquiry is. In an attempt to specify what is meant by
inquiry, the new Framework for K-12 Science Education articulates eight scientific
practices that are used by scientists. To gain a better understanding of highly motivated
science teachers knowledge of inquiry and reported use of scientific practices, we
surveyed 149, K-12 science teachers at the 2012 National Science Teachers Association
annual conference. Findings indicated the majority of these teachers had an
understanding of inquiry that did not align with descriptions of inquiry in reform
documents. Few teachers equated inquiry with the scientific practices from the
Framework, and those who did only mentioned a subset of the practices. Surprisingly,
most of these motivated teachers had not read key reform documents about inquiry.
Results also suggest teachers had difficulty distinguishing between some of the scientific
practices. Several factors were correlated with teachers reported use of inquiry,
including teachers background experience, such as if they have read national standards,
-
and school characteristics, such as if the curriculum they use supports inquiry-based
instruction. Results from this study can be used to inform the science education
community about highly motivated teachers understanding of inquiry and the use of
scientific practices in classrooms across the country. Further, they may help explain how
these practices are influenced by teacher knowledge and other background factors.
Finally, this research will provide important information for teacher education programs
and teacher professional development.
-
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Daniel Capps, for his
guidance, encouragement, and support throughout this project. I am very thankful to
have gotten the opportunity to work with Dan on this exciting project. His guidance has
helped me develop my research and writing skills as well as helped me write and submit
a successful conference abstract and travel grants. I am also grateful to my two other
advisory committee members Dr. Jonathan Shemwell and Dr. Craig Mason for their
input and guidance. Jon was especially insightful in helping me think about the meaning
of my results, and Craig was invaluable in helping me with the statistics.
I would also like to thank the members of my research group Dan, Jon, Shirly
Avargil, Kendra Michaud, Sue Klemmer, and Kaylee Gurschick for listening to my
ideas and providing valuable feedback as I was analyzing my results. I am also very
appreciative to Jason Bakelaar who graciously volunteered to help me with the inter-rater
reliability. Additionally, special thanks to Michael Hubenthal and John Taber from IRIS
for allowing me to share their booth at the NSTA conference. I am also deeply indebted
to all the teachers who piloted my survey and provided me valuable feedback as well as
all the teachers who took time to take the survey and be interviewed by me at the NSTA
conference without you, this project would not have been possible.
Thank you to everyone in the MST program who has made my time here so
enjoyable. I am particularly grateful for all the opportunities I have had through the
program including TAing biology, working at Jackson Lab, and being a Teaching
Partner. In addition to the new friends I have made in the MST program, I am especially
-
iv
grateful for my friends from across campus in marine science for their friendship as well
as continued support as I started the whole process of writing a thesis for a second time.
Finally, I owe much to my former advisor from marine science Lee Karp-Boss
as without her, I probably would not be where I am today. Lee first introduced me to
science education the first summer I started working with her back in 2008, and ever
since then I knew I wanted to become a science teacher. As a research scientist, she
always had (and still has) such enthusiasm for education and outreach, and it has
certainly rubbed off on me!
-
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................. iii
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................x
CHAPTER 1. OVERVIEW & LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................1
1.1. Overview and Research Questions ....................................................................... 1
1.2. What is Inquiry? ...................................................................................................2
1.2.1. Perspectives on Inquiry from History ........................................................4
1.2.2. Influence of Reform Documents ................................................................6
1.3. Why Should Inquiry-Based Instruction be Used in the Classroom? ..................12
1.4. Challenges to Inquiry-Based Instruction ............................................................14
1.5. Teachers Understanding of Inquiry ...................................................................16
1.6. Teachers Use of Inquiry ....................................................................................17
1.7. Factors that Influence Teachers Understanding and Use of Inquiry .................19
1.8. Significance of Study .........................................................................................19
CHAPTER 2. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS .................................................22
2.1. Survey Instrument ..............................................................................................22
2.2. Study Participants ...............................................................................................26
2.3. Survey Piloting ...................................................................................................27
-
vi
2.4. Survey Data Analysis .........................................................................................29
2.4.1. Range of Understanding ..........................................................................30
2.4.2. Perceived Challenges ...............................................................................35
2.4.3. Reported Use of Practices ........................................................................35
2.4.4. Relationship with Background Factors ....................................................36
2.5. Inter-rater Reliability ..........................................................................................38
2.6. Interviews ...........................................................................................................39
CHAPTER 3. RESULTS ..................................................................................................41
3.1. Range of Understanding about Inquiry ..............................................................41
3.1.1. Understanding of Inquiry and Themes Associated with Inquiry .............41
3.1.2. Origin of Understanding ..........................................................................43
3.1.3. Profile of Teachers Who Have a Low and High Understanding
of Inquiry .................................................................................................44
3.2. Perceived Challenges of Inquiry-Based Instruction ...........................................45
3.3. Reported Use of Scientific Practices ..................................................................46
3.4. Relationship with Background Factors ..............................................................49
3.4.1. Correlations with Understanding of Inquiry ............................................49
3.4.2. Correlations with Reported Use of Scientific Practices ...........................49
3.4.3. Multiple Linear Regression ......................................................................50
3.4.3.1. Teachers Background Characteristics ..........................................50
3.4.3.2. Teachers School Characteristics ..................................................52
3.4.3.3. Combination of Teachers Background and
School Characteristics ...................................................................53
-
vii
3.4.4. Analysis of Teachers Curriculum Type ..................................................53
3.4.5. Comparison of Teachers with a Higher Understanding of
Inquiry/ More Frequent Reported Use of Inquiry with Those
Teachers that had a Lower Understanding of Inquiry/ Less
Frequent Reported Use of Inquiry ..........................................................55
3.5. Interviews ...........................................................................................................56
3.5.1. Teachers Interpretations of Scientific Practice 1 ....................................58
3.5.2. Teachers Interpretations of Scientific Practice 6 ....................................60
CHAPTER 4. DISCUSSION ............................................................................................63
4.1. Range of Understanding about Inquiry ..............................................................63
4.2. Perceived Challenges of Inquiry-Based Instruction ...........................................65
4.3. Reported Use of Scientific Practices ..................................................................66
4.4. Relationship with Teachers Background Factors ..............................................68
4.5. Conclusions and Implications ............................................................................69
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................74
APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................81
Appendix A. Survey Instrument ................................................................................81
Appendix B. Code Book for Question #7 .................................................................87
Appendix C. Sample Interview Transcription ...........................................................95
BIOGRAPHY OF THE AUTHOR ...................................................................................98
-
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1. Five essential features of classroom inquiry ..................................................9
Table 1.2. Essential features of classroom inquiry and their variations .......................10
Table 1.3. Eight scientific practices from A New Framework for K-12
Science Education ........................................................................................11
Table 2.1. Possible challenges of enacting inquiry included in the survey ..................23
Table 2.2. Statements about scientific practices included in the survey .......................24
Table 2.3. Teacher background factors included in the survey ....................................25
Table 2.4. Changes made to the survey after the piloting process ................................29
Table 2.5. Inter-rater reliability results .........................................................................39
Table 3.1. Distribution of teachers understanding of inquiry scores ...........................42
Table 3.2. Percentage of teachers that included each scientific practice in
their answer to the understanding of inquiry question .................................42
Table 3.3. Percentage of teachers that included each theme in their answer to
the understanding of inquiry question ..........................................................43
Table 3.4. Methods through which teachers have learned about inquiry .....................44
Table 3.5. Reported challenges of enacting inquiry-based instruction .........................46
Table 3.6. Principal components analysis of the 21 statements from
the Framework .............................................................................................47
Table 3.7. The bivariate and squared part correlations of the background
characteristics predictors with teachers reported use of
scientific practices ........................................................................................51
-
ix
Table 3.8. The bivariate and squared part correlations of the school
characteristics predictors with teachers reported use of
scientific practices ........................................................................................53
Table 3.9. Results of t-tests comparing teachers who use a commercial
curriculum and those who either developed their own or who have
no specific curriculum...................................................................................54
Table 3.10. Results of t-tests comparing teachers with a higher understanding /
more frequent reported use of inquiry and teachers with a lower
understanding / less frequent reported use of inquiry ..................................56
Table C.1. Results from interviewee #10 ......................................................................97
-
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1. Degree to which teachers have read national and state standards ..............44
Figure 3.2. Average score of each scientific practice ...................................................48
-
1
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW & LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1. Overview and Research Questions
Inquiry-based instruction, a type of instruction in which students are engaged in
open-ended, student-centered investigations often set in the context of real-life problems,
has been promoted by educational reform documents for nearly two decades as one of the
central tenants of good science teaching. As opposed to traditional teacher-led
instruction, when engaged in inquiry, students make observations, pose questions, plan
investigations, develop models, and interpret data. Although national and state standards
call for inquiry-based instruction, and there is a body of research that reports on the
benefits of inquiry-based instruction in improving science education, many teachers do
not understand what inquiry is and do not implement inquiry in their classrooms.
The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of the most
motivated K-12 science teachers knowledge and implementation of inquiry-based
science teaching. The research questions guiding the study were the following:
1. What is the range of motivated science teachers understanding of inquiry-
based science instruction and where might this understanding originate?
2. What are these teachers perceived challenges of enacting inquiry-based
instruction?
3. How often do these teachers report enacting scientific practices in their
classroom and is there a relation between their understanding and reported
classroom practice?
-
2
4. Is there evidence that teachers understanding and use of scientific practices
differ based on background factors (e.g. teaching experience, education, etc.)?
The subsequent sections of this chapter define the term inquiry, including
perspectives from the early 20th
century to todays reform documents, discuss why
inquiry-based teaching methods should be used, outline challenges to enacting inquiry-
based instruction, summarize what we know about how often teachers use inquiry, and
describe factors that influence these practices. Finally, the importance of this study is
discussed.
1.2. What is Inquiry?
For the past two decades, science education reform documents in the United
States have advocated for the teaching of science as inquiry (American Association for
the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1989, 1993; National Research Council [NRC],
1996, 2000). Even though the idea of teaching science as inquiry is not new, there is still
much confusion about inquiry-based instruction (Abrams et al., 2008; Bybee, 2000).
Inquiry has been described as one of the most confounding terms within science
education (Settlage, 2003, p. 34).
Much of this confusion stems from the varying definitions of inquiry in the
science education literature, reform documents, and articles for teachers. Further
confusion stems from the fact that inquiry varies within academic subjects and that it
exists within several different contexts such as scientific inquiry, inquiry-based learning,
and inquiry-based teaching (Newman et al., 2004). Below are some perspectives on
inquiry in the classroom from various sources.
-
3
Suchman, developer of an inquiry-based teaching program called the Inquiry
Training Project, once said that inquiry is the way people learn when theyre left alone
(Suchman, 1966). In a book aimed for teachers, Hassard (2005) described inquiry as: a
term used in science teaching that refers to a way of questioning, seeking knowledge or
information, or finding out about phenomena (p. 20). In a book for both teachers and
researchers, Lederman (2004) wrote that inquiry was the process by which scientific
knowledge is developed (p. 308). In science education research articles, Edelson et al.
(1999) wrote that inquiry involves the pursuit of open-ended questions and is driven by
questions generated by the learners (p. 393) and Stoddart et al. (2000) referred to inquiry
as giving the students experience with the development of research questions and
testable hypotheses (p. 1222).
Abrams et al. (2008) described inquiry in terms of the various perspectives, or
goals, that different groups have for classroom inquiry. For instance, because inquiry is
supposedly similar to tasks that scientists perform, some believe that inquiry should be a
means to hone students scientific reasoning abilities. Others believe that inquiry should
be a means of interacting with competing knowledge claims and teachers should shift
their focus from doing more traditional hands-on science activities to developing
classroom activities that focus the students on constructing evidence-based rationales that
will be tested and critiqued by their peers and others (Abrams et al., 2008, p. xxii).
Finally, some also believe that inquiry should be a way to enculturate students into
science, thus helping them gain first hand knowledge of how scientific knowledge is
created and how to create that knowledge themselves (Abrams et al., 2008, p. xxiv).
-
4
Next is a more detailed discussion of the historical roots of inquiry and definitions from
current science reform documents.
1.2.1. Perspectives on Inquiry from History
The roots of inquiry as a key component of science education go back to John
Dewey in the early 20th
century. Before Dewey, most educators viewed science as a set
body of knowledge that students should learn through teacher-led lectures (NRC, 2000).
Dewey, a leader in the progressive movement in education, believed science had been
taught as an accumulation of ready-made material with which students are to be made
familiar, not enough as a method of thinking, an attitude of mind, after the pattern of
which mental habits are to be transformed (Dewey, 1910, p. 122). Accordingly, he
thought schooling overemphasized science as a body of knowledge and believed that the
process or method of science was just as important to learn (Dewey, 1910) and wrote that
scientific inquiry is the active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or
supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further
conclusions to which it tends (Dewey, 1933, p. 9). To him, instruction should be
grounded in what the student already knows and should include the inquiry processes of
reason, evidence, inference, and generalization (Hassard, 2005). Deweys model is
student-centered, with the teachers main role as a facilitator/guide (Barrow, 2006).
After World War II, many people in the United States began to realize our
military and economic success was due to our scientific expertise. With the aim of
producing more scientists, during the late 1950s and early 1960s, two men Jerome
Bruner and Joseph Schwab advocated for the teaching of science by engagement in
-
5
inquiry. Bruner organized the Woods Hole conference of 1959 which brought together a
group of scientists and psychologists to discuss how to make science education more
engaging for students. He argued that students should experience doing science in order
for them to develop an attitude towards learning and inquiry (Abrams, 2008).
Schwab published articles on inquiry (or enquiry, as he spelled it) where he
advocated for teaching science by engagement in inquiry. He thought that the way
science was being taught did not reflect the methods of modern science: The formal
reason for a change in present methods of teaching the sciences lies in the fact that
science itself has changed. A new view concerning the nature of scientific inquiry now
controls research (Schwab, 1958). Along with Dewey, Schwab saw science as more of
a process than a body of knowledge, and sought to change traditional science curricula as
well as traditional student and teacher roles. Schwab encouraged science teachers to use
the science laboratory to teach science through inquiry by using different levels of
openness in their laboratories. To help science education more closely reflect the work of
scientists, he advocated that laboratories should lead rather than lag the classroom
phase. Instead of the laboratory serving as a place where students simply illustrated what
they already learned, laboratory manuals could be used to pose questions, leaving the
methods up to the students, or students could explore phenomena without questions,
instead asking their own questions, gathering evidence, and constructing explanations
(Dewey, 1960). In addition to using the laboratory, Schwab also proposed a new
approach called enquiry into enquiry in which students would be given reports to read
about scientific research and then have discussions about the problems, data, role of
technology, interpretation of data, and conclusions reached by the scientists (Barrow,
-
6
2006). In this method, students would learn about scientific knowledge, alternate
explanations, and the use of evidence.
The work of Dewey, Bruner, and Schwab had a major influence on curricular
materials such as the National Science Foundation sponsored curriculum of the 1970s
and the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (Alberts, 2000). Their views of science as
more of a process than a body of knowledge influenced many of the new materials by
placing a greater emphasis on learning the process of science than merely just mastering
the subject matter. Also, instead of having the class solely teacher-led, instructors were
encouraged to take into account students ideas and more laboratory experiences were
provided where students could pursue their own questions (NRC, 2000).
1.2.2. Influence of Reform Documents
The developers of the NSES had this historical perspective in mind as they began
to draft reform documents in the 1980s and 1990s. The reform movement began with
Project 2061, the long-term effort by the Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS) toward the goal of nationwide scientific literacy by the year 2061. Their first
document, Science for All Americans (AAAS, 1989), defined scientific literacy and what
students should know and be able to do by the time they graduate from high school
(Barrow, 2006). Their second document, Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy (AAAS,
1993) organized the topics into grade-level groupings. Both documents advocated for
integrating scientific inquiry and content and placed an emphasis on inquiry as the central
strategy for teaching science. Science for All Americans defined inquiry as being:
-
7
far more flexible than the rigid sequence of steps commonly depicted in
textbooks as the scientific method. It is much more than just doing
experiments, and it is not confined to laboratories. If students themselves
participate in scientific investigations that progressively approximate good
science, then the picture they come away with will likely be reasonably
accurate. But that will require recasting typical school laboratory work.
The usual high school science experiment is unlike the real thing. The
question to be investigated is decided by the teacher, not the investigators;
what apparatus to use, what data to collect, and how to organize the data
are also decided by the teacher (or the lab manual); time is not made
available for repetitions or, when things are not working out, for revising
the experiment; the results are not presented to other investigators for
criticism; and, to top it off, the correct answer is known ahead of time
(AAAS, 1993, p. 9).
The National Science Education Standards (NSES; NRC, 1996) also emphasized
the importance of inquiry. The NSES conceptualized inquiry in three ways (Anderson,
2002). The first, scientific inquiry, refers to the diverse ways in which scientists study
the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their
work (NRC, 1996, p. 23). This definition of inquiry represents an understanding of
science as a process and is independent of instructional strategy. For example, students
should learn that investigations are undertaken for a wide variety of reasons such as to
explain new phenomena or to test conclusions of previous investigations (NRC, 1996).
-
8
In this category, there is some overlap between understanding scientific inquiry and the
nature of science (NOS). The second, inquiry learning, refers to an active learning
process in which students are engaged. Inquiry learning reflects the nature of scientific
inquiry and encompasses a range of activities. For example, students should be able to
design and conduct scientific investigations, formulate and analyze scientific
explanations, and communicate and defend a scientific argument (NRC, 1996).
The third use of inquiry, inquiry teaching, refers to a characteristic of a desired
form of teaching. The document states that inquiry into authentic questions generated
from student experiences is the central strategy for teaching science (NRC, 1996, p. 31)
and defines inquiry teaching as the activities of students in which they develop
knowledge and understanding of scientific ideas, as well as an understanding of how
scientists study the natural world (NRC, 1996, p. 23). While drawing parallels between
scientific and school science inquiry, the NSES defines five essential features of
classroom inquiry (Table 1.1; NRC, 2000):
-
9
Table 1.1. Five essential features of classroom inquiry (NRC, 2000).
For instruction to be considered inquiry, it is not necessary for all five of these
features to be present. For example, a lesson that includes all five features of inquiry
would be labeled as full inquiry whereas a lesson with only some of these features
would be partial inquiry (NRC, 2000). Inquiry-based teaching can also vary in the
Essential Feature Description
1. Learners are engaged by
scientifically oriented
questions
Scientifically oriented questions lead themselves to empirical
investigation and can center on objects, organisms, and natural
events in the world. There are two primary kinds of scientific
questions why questions and how questions. Teachers
should help students focus their questions so that they can be
answered using investigations.
2. Learners give priority to
evidence, which allows them
to develop and evaluate
explanations that address
scientifically oriented
questions
As opposed to other ways of knowing such as personal beliefs
or religious values, science distinguishes itself through the use of
empirical evidence as the basis of explanations. Scientists
obtain evidence from observations and measurements taken in
natural settings or in the laboratory.
3. Learners formulate
explanations from evidence
to address scientifically
oriented questions
Scientific explanations are consistent with experimental and
observational evidence and are based on reason. They
provide new understanding by explaining, for example,
relationships or causes for effects.
4.Learners evaluate their
explanations in light of
alternate explanations,
particularly those reflecting
scientific understanding
Scientists always ask questions such as: does the evidence
support the proposed explanation? or, are there any apparent
biases or flaws in the reasoning connecting evidence and
explanation? With this feature of inquiry, students should
ensure that their explanations are consistent with accepted
scientific knowledge.
5. Learners communicate
and justify their proposed
explanations
In order to share their results and explanations, scientists have
to adequately communicate their work. Having students share
explanations can provide opportunities for others to ask
questions, examine evidence, and suggest alternate
explanations.
-
10
amount of structure that teachers provide for students (Table 1.2). In Table 1.2, the most
open variations of inquiry-based teaching are described in the left-hand column while the
most guided are described in the right-hand column. The more open the inquiry, the
more the responsibility shifts to the student. This continuum of open vs. guided inquiry
is similar to Schwabs laboratory exercises which varied in their degree of teacher
structure and guidance.
Table 1.2. Essential features of classroom inquiry and their variations (NRC, 2000).
Essential
Feature
Learner engages in
scientifically
oriented questions
Learner poses a
question
Learner selects
among questions,
poses new
questions
Learner sharpens
or clarifies
question provided
by teacher,
materials, or other
source
Learner engages in
question provided
by teacher,
materials, or other
source
Learner gives
priority to evidence
in responding to
questions
Learner determines
what constitutes
evidence and
collects it
Learner directed to
collect certain data
Learner given data
and asked to
analyze
Learner given data
and told how to
analyze
Learner formulates
explanations from
evidence
Learner formulates
explanations after
summarizing
evidence
Learner guided in
process of
formulating
explanations from
evidence
Learner given
possible ways to
use evidence to
formulate
explanation
Learner provided
with evidence
Learner connects
explanations to
scientific
knowledge
Learner
independently
examines other
resources and
forms the links to
explanations
Learner directed
toward areas and
sources of
scientific
knowledge
Learner given
possible
connections
Learner
communicates and
justifies
explanations
Learner forms
reasonable and
logical argument to
communicate
explanations
Learner coached in
development of
communication
Learner provided
broad guidelines to
sharpen
communication
Learner given
steps and
procedures for
communication
Variations
More -------------- Amount of Learner Self-Direction ------------- Less
Less ---------------- Amount of Direction from Teacher or Material --------------- More
-
11
Recently, the NRC released A Framework for K-12 Science Education (NRC,
2012). This Framework will serve as the basis of the Next Generation Science Standards
(NGSS). The Framework contains three major dimensions that science education should
be built around science and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts that unify the
study of science and engineering throughout their common application across fields, and
core ideas in four disciplinary areas: physical sciences, life sciences, earth and space
sciences, and engineering, technology, and the applications of science. The first
dimension, derived from practices that scientists actually engage in as part of their work,
contains eight practices that define inquiry in science (Table 1.3).
Table 1.3. Eight scientific practices from A New Framework for K-12 Science Education
(NRC, 2012).
The standards clearly articulate these eight practices in hopes of better specifying
what is meant by inquiry in science and the range of cognitive, social, and physical
practices that it requires (p. 2-5). For each practice, the standards explain what students
should be able to do in regards to each by the end of the 12th
grade and briefly discuss
how students competence might progress across the different grade levels. We think of
1 Asking questions and defining problems
2 Developing and using models
3 Planning and carrying out investigations
4 Analyzing and interpreting data
5 Using mathematics, information and computer technology, and computational thinking
6 Constructing explanations and designing solutions
7 Engaging in argument from evidence
8 Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information
Practice
-
12
the practices in the Framework not as a revolution, but rather as an evolution in the way
of looking at inquiry, as the Framework builds on former standards documents.
1.3. Why Should Inquiry-Based Instruction be Used in the Classroom?
In general, research supports inquiry as a pedagogical approach that produces
positive results (e.g. Haury, 1993; Shymansky et al., 1983; Wise and Okey, 1983;
Weinstein et al., 1982; Bredderman, 1983). Inquiry-based teaching methods draw upon
constructivist views of learning (Driver et al., 1994). Constructivism, founded on the
ideas of Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky (Fosnot & Perry, 2005) is a theory of learning and
development which suggests that humans actively build, or construct, new knowledge
based on the foundation of previous experiences. Inquiry-based teaching and the
constructivist learning theory promote many of the same objectives such as emphasizing
student construction of concepts by engaging in experiences (Abd-El-Khalick et al.
2004). Instead of memorizing facts directly from the teacher, inquiry-based methods
focus on this active student knowledge construction through experiences with scientific
questions, data collection, data analysis, and constructing explanations.
Inquiry-based instruction is thought to be a powerful vehicle to learn science
because it models how science is practiced and encourages students to develop their own
understandings. Research on student learning has found that in order for students to use
knowledge they have learned, they must understand the major scientific concepts and
develop abilities to apply this knowledge (Bransford et al., 1999). Students have prior
conceptions about natural phenomena and they formulate new knowledge by discovering
alternatives that appear to be more useful in essence, students reorganize the structure
of their thought processes (Driver et al., 1994). Authentic inquiry activities provide
-
13
students with the motivation to learn new concepts and to incorporate this new
understanding into their existing knowledge. Scientific inquiry matches research on
student learning:
inquiry focuses on a scientifically-oriented question, problem, or
phenomenon, beginning with what the learner knows and actively
engaging him or her in the search for answers and explanations. This
search involves gathering and analyzing information; making inferences
and predictions; and actively creating, modifying, and discarding some
explanations. As students work together to discuss the evidence, compare
results, and with teacher guidance, connect their results with scientific
knowledge, their understanding broadens (NRC, 2000, p. 120).
As examples, researchers have found that inquiry-based approaches increase
motivation (Patrick et al., 2009; Heywood & Heywood, 1992), enhance laboratory skills
and graphing and interpreting data (Mattheis & Nakayama, 1988), vocabulary knowledge
and conceptual understandings (Lloyd & Contheras, 1985), critical thinking (Narode et
al., 1987), science content understanding (Geier et al., 2008; Lynch et al., 2005), and
positive attitudes towards science (Rakow, 1986). Supporting this small sample of
examples, meta-analyses of research on inquiry-based teaching also report significant
improvements in student achievement, attitude, and process skills (Minner et al., 2010;
Shymansky et al, 1983; Shymansky et al., 1990). Recently, Granger et al. (2012)
conducted a large-scale, randomized-cluster experimental design comparing the effects of
student-centered and teacher-centered instruction on 4th
and 5th
graders understanding of
-
14
space-science concepts and found that learning outcomes were significantly higher for
students in the student-centered classrooms.
Inquiry-based teaching has also been shown to engage and motivate more
students than traditional methods, especially students from under-represented populations
in science. For example, significantly higher learning using inquiry-oriented approaches
has been documented in students with learning disabilities (Scruggs & Mastropieri,
1993), deaf students (Chiara, 1990) and language minority students (Roseberry et al.,
1990). In addition, in a study researching 3rd
and 4th
grade students abilities to complete
some inquiry tasks such as controlling variables and using measurement data and tools to
support their theories, Lee et al. (2006) found that inquiry-based teaching methods
especially enhanced these skills for older students and for students from less privileged
backgrounds.
1.4. Challenges to Inquiry-Based Instruction
Even though the research literature generally agrees that inquiry-based teaching
produces positive results, many teachers report significant challenges to teaching using
these methods. Lee and Houseal (2003) break down these challenges into external and
internal factors. Examples of external factors include lack of time (Newman et al., 2004),
lack of resources (Abell & McDonald, 2004), lack of school or community support (Lee
& Houseal, 2003), parental resistance (Anderson, 2002), student weaknesses in
systematically collecting, analyzing, and drawing conclusions from data (Kraijcik et al.,
1998), and classroom management issues (Roehrig & Luft, 2004).
-
15
An example of an internal factor is lack of teachers content and/or pedagogical
knowledge. Lack of science content knowledge can make it difficult for teachers to lead
inquiry-based lessons (Lederman & Neiss, 2000), and even if they have the necessary
content knowledge, lack of pedagogical knowledge can also cause a challenge (Shulman,
1986). Lack of content knowledge is especially a problem at the elementary level, where
many teachers have little formal science training (Kennedy, 1998). As discussed in the
previous section, because there are a variety of meanings among the science education
community associated with the term inquiry, teachers may have trouble figuring out how
to teach using inquiry-based methods. Also, teachers may have few operational models
of inquiry on which to draw, making them unsure of teacher and student roles (Crawford,
2000). A second example of an internal factor is teachers incompatible pedagogical
beliefs. Incompatible pedagogical beliefs about learning and teaching practices, such as
the preparation ethic, the feeling that teachers must provide enough coverage to prepare
students for the next level of schooling (Anderson, 2002), can also impact how teachers
use inquiry-based instruction (Roehrig & Luft, 2004).
Although many studies have identified the challenges listed above, there is
disagreement on which are the largest challenges. For example, Edelson et al., (1999)
identified five significant challenges to implementing inquiry learning as student
motivation, accessibility of investigation techniques (if students can perform the tasks the
investigation requires), student science content background knowledge, and the ability for
students to organize and manage complex, extended activities. In a more recent article,
Quigley et al., (2011) identified the four major challenges facing teachers as: measuring
the quality of inquiry, using discourse to improve inquiry (students cannot become
-
16
engaged if they are not able to talk science), pursuing the goal of teaching content
through inquiry methods, and learning how to effectively manage an inquiry classroom.
Even though this list of challenges may seem daunting, many of the above studies also
discussed ways teachers could minimize these challenges in their classrooms.
1.5. Teachers Understanding of Inquiry
In science, scientists often generate their own research questions, investigate
many possible variables, invent complex procedures, consider whether their results can
be applied to other situations, and manage results from multiple studies (Chinn &
Malhotra, 2002). When asked to describe the most important aspects of scientific
investigations, a sample of 32 science faculty members valued the role of scientific
literature, scientific questions, pattern finding, and puzzle solving (Harwood et al., 2002).
Classroom inquiry involves different cognitive processes and core attributes than inquiry
carried out by scientists, and as a result, inquiry tasks in the classroom are different than
tasks and processes employed by scientists (Wong & Hodson, 2008; Chinn & Malhotra,
2002). Thus, in conceptualizing classroom inquiry, we draw on the constructs of
classroom inquiry described above, including the essential features (NRC, 1996) or
scientific practices (NRC, 2012).
Research on teachers has found that their understanding of classroom inquiry is
often incomplete. For example, Demir and Abell (2010) investigated the meaning of
inquiry held by beginning teachers and found their views did not match those described
in the 2000 NRC document, Inquiry in the National Science Education Standards.
Teachers often left out evidence, explanation, justification, and communication in their
answers, with one teacher thinking student choice determined what made an activity
-
17
inquiry-based, and another thinking inquiry-based activities were unstructured and
student-driven. In a recent study examining the teaching practices and views of inquiry
of 26 well-qualified 5th
-9th
grade teachers from across the country, Capps and Crawford
(2012) found that few teachers from a group of highly motivated and well-qualified
teachers could describe what inquiry-based instruction really was. Most equated inquiry
with hands-on learning. Brown et al. (2006) reported that college professors had an
incomplete view of classroom inquiry they stressed the role of questioning and
collecting data, but often did not mention other features such as explanation and
justification. Further, they tended to have an all-or-nothing view, thinking inquiry was
completely student-driven, and also thought it was unstructured and time-consuming, and
hence more appropriate for upper-level science majors than for introductory students or
non-majors.
1.6. Teachers Use of Inquiry
There are few research studies that specifically address how often teachers use
inquiry-based methods in their classrooms, though the few studies published consistently
indicate that it is not happening very often. One of the earliest studies on the topic
reported that inquiry-based teaching was not widespread even in teachers using
curriculum materials developed specifically to foster inquiry teaching (Stake and Easley,
1978). In another older study, Welch et al., (1981) found that teachers were not using
inquiry as it was described in reform documents. In terms of content focus on inquiry,
Weiss (2003) found that 15% of lessons in elementary schools focused on science
inquiry, while only 2% of lessons in grades 9-12 did.
-
18
In addition to finding that few well-qualified 5th
-9th
grade teachers could describe
what inquiry really was, Capps and Crawford (2012) also found that few teachers
demonstrated an ability to teach science as inquiry. They reported that most inquiry was
teacher-initiated, and the most common aspects of inquiry were basic abilities such as
using tools and mathematics in science class. When asked in an interview if they thought
they were teaching science as inquiry, most teachers believed they were. Marshall et al.,
(2007) administered a 58-item survey to 1,222 K-12 mathematics and science teachers in
a large district to measure their beliefs about and use of inquiry in the classroom. Higher
than previous studies, they found elementary school teachers reported using inquiry-
based practices 39% of the time, and middle and high school teachers reported using
inquiry-based practices between 32 and 34% of the time. Most teachers in the study
believed that they should be using inquiry more than they actually reported.
In another recent article, Asay and Orgill (2010) analyzed articles published in
The Science Teacher from 1988-2007 for explicit evidence of features of inquiry using
the five essential features of inquiry described in Inquiry and the National Science
Education Standards (NRC, 2000). They found that few articles described full inquiry,
and gathering and analyzing evidence were much more prominent in the articles than
were other features of inquiry. During the 10 year period, 82% of the articles involved
data or evidence gathered by students or provided by the teacher, and in 64% of the
articles this data was analyzed, but the other features of inquiry (questioning, explaining,
and communicating) were each present in less than 25% of the articles.
-
19
1.7. Factors that Influence Teachers Understanding and Use of Inquiry
Previous studies have identified multiple factors that influence teachers abilities
to implement inquiry-based instruction as well as how often they teach using inquiry-
based methods. Lotter et al. (2007) found four core conceptions that guided teachers use
of inquiry-based practices: their conceptions of science (e.g. if they viewed science as a
set body of knowledge or placed more emphasis on science process skills), students (e.g.
if they viewed their students as passive learners or more as problem solvers), the purpose
of education (how they thought education should prepare students for life e.g. through
learning content knowledge, instilling a good work ethic or teaching students how to
think), and effective teaching practices. In their study on the views and practices of
teachers, Capps and Crawford (2012) found no single factor that accounted for teachers
who were able to teach science through inquiry (such as scientific research experience),
but they did note that all the teachers who demonstrated an ability to teach science as
inquiry had abundant experience teaching and learning science. Marshall et al. (2009)
identified four variables that related to the amount of time teachers engaged students in
inquiry: grade level taught, content area taught, level of support received, and self-
efficacy for teaching inquiry. They did not find that gender, prior education, or work
experiences were correlated with inquiry-based instruction.
1.8. Significance of Study
The current study was conducted to gain a better understanding of motivated
elementary, middle, and high school science teachers understanding and reported use of
inquiry-based science instruction. To do this, we surveyed and interviewed science
-
20
teachers from across the country at the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA)
Conference in Indianapolis, IN from March 29th
to April 1st, 2012.
Although other researchers have surveyed science teachers understanding of
inquiry before, most of these studies were conducted in a single school district or
measured the impact of an intervention on teachers understanding of inquiry. Little is
known, however, about teachers understanding of inquiry nationwide. To fill this gap in
the literature, this study surveys teachers from a large geographic distribution and with a
wide variety of backgrounds. In addition to surveying teachers from across the country,
this study also differs from previous studies in its definition of inquiry. While many
researchers have defined inquiry and conducted studies using the NRCs five essential
features of classroom inquiry (e.g. Anderson, 2002; Capps & Crawford, 2012; Crawford,
2000; Luft, 1999), the current study incorporates the new NRC science frameworks
(2012), specifically defining inquiry by the eight scientific practices (Table 2.2). Finally,
teachers attending the NSTA Annual Conference are typically well-prepared and highly-
motivated science teachers, thus, surveying this population gives us a best-case scenario
if teachers are using inquiry in their classrooms.
Keys and Bryan (2001) called for research on teachers beliefs, knowledge, and
practices of using inquiry-based instruction. The data from this study helps to answer
this call and can be used to inform the science education community, teachers, and
teacher educators about how and how often inquiry is being implemented in classrooms
across the country and how these practices are influenced by teacher knowledge and
other background factors. Research on teachers understanding about inquiry can reflect
what may be realistically accomplished by reforms on a large scale and can help inform
-
21
the reform process. In addition, results from this research can help better support
teachers in understanding and enacting reform-based teaching approaches and can help
guide the development of appropriate teacher education and professional development
programs.
-
22
CHAPTER 2
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
2.1. Survey Instrument
We developed a written survey containing four sections: 1) teachers
understanding of inquiry, 2) origin of knowledge regarding inquiry, 3) perceived
challenges of enacting inquiry, and 4) reported use of scientific practices. Below are
descriptions of each of these sections. See Appendix A for the complete survey.
To learn about teachers understanding of inquiry, we asked teachers to respond
to the following open-ended question: If you had to tell a group of parents, at an open-
house night, what are the most important aspects of inquiry-based science teaching, what
would you tell them? We assessed the origin of teachers knowledge of inquiry by
asking them where they learned about inquiry. Included in the choices were school-based
workshops, outside workshops, reading articles about inquiry, college classes, and/or
peers, and by asking them to rate the extent to which they have read four pertinent
national and state documents about inquiry. Teachers rated how much of the document
they had read using a 5-point Likert scale from 1, Ive not read it, to 5, Ive read all of it.
To learn about challenges of enacting inquiry, we selected items based on a literature
review (see Table 2.1) and asked teachers to rate how much they perceived each
statement to be a challenge to enacting inquiry-based science teaching in their classroom.
Again, we used a Likert scale, from 1, not a challenge, to 5, major challenge.
-
23
Table 2.1. Possible challenges of enacting inquiry included in the survey.
Possible Challenge
a Lack of student motivation
b Students are too young
c Students lack the ability
d My insufficient content knowledge
e My insufficient pedagogical knowledge
f Classroom management issues
g Not enough time
h It takes too much preparation time
i Class size is too large
j Assessing students
k Finding inquiry-based lessons
l Availability of materials
To learn about reported use of scientific practices in the classroom, the survey
included 21 statements from A Framework for K-12 Science Education (NRC, 2012).
We chose three statements related to each practice (practice #5, related to mathematics,
was not included). Teachers were asked to rate how often they had students do each
using a 7-point Likert scale from 1, never, to 7, during every class (Table 2.2).
Statements were taken directly from the Framework. However, due to time constraints,
only three statements from each practice were chosen (out of 5-6). Several of these
statements were shortened while still retaining the essence of the original statement.
-
24
Table 2.2. Statements about scientific practices included in the survey.
1. Ask questions about the natural and human-built worlds
2. Formulate and/or refine questions that can be answered empirically in a science classroom
3. Ask questions about features, patterns, or contradictions noted in data sets
1. Construct drawings or diagrams as representations of events or systems (e.g. to represent
what happens in the water in a puddle as it is warmed by the sun)
2. Represent and explain phenomena with multiple types of models (e.g. represent molecules with
bond diagrams or 3-D models)
3. Discuss the limitations and precision of a model
1. Decide what data are to be gathered, what tools are needed to do the gathering, and how
measurements will be recoreded
2. Decide how much data are needed to produce reliable measurements and consider any
limitations on the precision of the data
3. Plan experimental or field-research procedures, identifying relevant independent and
dependent variables, and when appropriate, the need for controls
1. Analyze data systematically, either to look for patterns or to test whether the data are
consistent with an initial hypothesis
2. Use spreadsheets, databases, tables, charts, graphs, and statistics to collate, summarize, and
display data and to explore relationships between variables
3. Evaluate the strength of a conclusion that can be inferred from any data set, using appropriate
grade-level mathematics and statistical techniques
1. Construct their own explanations of phenomena using their knowledge of accepted scientific
theory and linking it to models and evidence
2. Use scientific evidence and models to support or refute an explanatory account of a
phenomenon
3. Identify gaps or weaknesses in explanatory accounts
1. Construct a scientific argument showing how the data support the claim
2. Identify possible weaknesses in scientific arguments, appropriate to the students' level of
knowledge, and discuss them using reasoning and evidence
3. Recognize the major features of scientific arguments are claims, data and reasons, and
distinguish these elements in examples
1. Use words, tables, diagrams, and graphs to communicate their understanding or to ask
questions about a system under study
2. Read grade level appropriate scientific text with tables, diagrams, and graphs and explain the
ideas being communicated
3. Produce written and illustrated text or oral presentations that communicate their own ideas and
accomplishments
Practice 7. Engaging in argument from evidence
Practice 8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information
Practice 1. Asking questions and defining problems
Practice 2. Developing and using models
Practice 3. Planning and carrying out investigations
Practice 4. Analyzing and interpreting data
Practice 6. Constructing explanations and designing solutions
-
25
In addition to these four sections, the survey contained questions related to
demographics, education, work experience, etc. to determine if there were particular
factors that might help explain teachers understanding and reported use of inquiry (Table
2.3).
Table 2.3. Teacher background factors included in the survey.
Several of the Likert-scale items from the self-confidence and school characteristics
categories (questions 11 a, b, c, f, and h; see Appendix A) came from a survey developed
Items
Gender
Primary grades taught (elementary, middle, high)
Type of school (Public, private)
% of students receiving free or reduced lunch
Undergraduate/graduate school(s) attended
Major(s)
Year(s) graduated
If they wrote a thesis
Years of teaching experience
# of years of work experience related to science (industry, government, other
lab or field experience not related to a university degree
Participation in a Research Experience for Teachers (RET)
Approximate # of professional workshops or conferences they have attended in
the last 5 years (science focused, science teaching methods focused)
Freedom in designing their curriculum
Their curriculum's support for inquiry-based instruction
Type of curriculum (teacher developed, commercial, or no specific curriculum)
Their confidence in using inquiry
Their knowledge of their discipline's content standards
Importance of test preparation in their school
School administration's support for inquiry-based instruction
School
characteristics:
Demographics:
Category
Education:
Experience:
Curriculum:
Self-confidence:
-
26
by Marshall et al. (2009) to gather information about K-12 science and math teachers
beliefs about and use of inquiry in the classroom.
2.2. Study Participants
The study used a mixed-methods approach combining quantitative and qualitative
data (Creswell, 2009). We collected both survey and interview data from the
participants, K-12 teachers attending the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA)
Conference in Indianapolis, IN in 2012. The NSTA conference provides an avenue for
science educators to connect with one another and share their experiences as well as learn
new science content and teaching strategies. We chose participants attending this
conference for two reasons: (1) the national conference for NSTA attracts teachers of all
ages and many ethnic groups from across the country, providing a diverse sample
population, and (2) teachers attending this conference are typically highly-motivated as
they must have the desire attend and expand their professional growth. We received
approval for the study from the University of Maines Institutional Review Board prior to
the piloting process (described below) and travelling to the conference.
To recruit participants, we secured space in the exhibition hall in a booth run by
IRIS (Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology), an education and public
outreach organization that aims to advance awareness and understanding of seismology
and earth science. We asked teachers who approached the IRIS both or who walked in
the aisle in front of the booth to participate in the study with a statement such as:
Hi, are you a science teacher? Im a graduate student at the University of
Maine, and Im wondering if you would be willing to participate in a
-
27
research study I am conducting as part of my Masters thesis? The study
is on science teachers perceptions and practices of inquiry-based science
teaching. If you choose to participate, you will be given a written survey
that will take approximately 10 minutes to complete
As a further incentive to participate in the study, teachers had the chance to win one of
four, $25 Amazon.com gift cards. To be eligible for the drawing which occurred at the
end of the conference teachers had to hand in their completed survey and enter their
email address on a separate piece of paper. Teachers who agreed to complete the survey
were directed to complete the survey at a nearby table and return it to the IRIS booth.
We recruited interview participants by looking to see if respondents checked a box on the
back of their completed survey asking if they would be willing to participate in a five-
minute interview about the topics raised in the survey. Interviews were conducted on-
the-spot and were recorded after asking the teachers permission. In total, 152 teachers
completed the survey and 11 completed interviews. Surveys completed by student
teachers and college-level teachers were excluded from the analysis, bringing the final
number of analyzed surveys to 149.
2.3. Survey Piloting
The survey was piloted with 21, K-12 teachers. The piloting teachers were each
asked to take the survey and provide written comments and feedback on the questions.
Additionally, we conducted interviews with seven of these teachers to obtain more detail
about their interpretation of the questions. Goals for the piloting process included: (1)
ensuring face validity, making sure teachers understood and interpreted the questions
-
28
correctly, (2) ensuring there was a desired level of variation within each question, and (3)
checking correlations between questions to identify and remove redundant questions.
We recruited eight piloting volunteers from teachers currently participating in the
University of Maine Physical Sciences Partnership, specifically teachers in the 9th
grade
task force, a group of 15 teachers working together to evaluate a set of candidate physical
science curricula. Additionally, we recruited seven teachers from the Fossil Finders
project, a collaboration between Cornell University and the Paleontological Research
Institute in Ithaca, New York that focuses on learning about evolutionary concepts
through an authentic inquiry-based investigation of Devonian-aged fossils. Finally, we
also asked six local teachers to pilot the survey. Because the majority of the 21 piloting
teachers were motivated teachers who regularly took part in long-term professional
development programs and attended science teacher conferences, we felt they were a
good analog for our target population of teachers at the NSTA conference. Table 2.4
describes the changes made to the survey after the piloting process.
-
29
Table 2.4. Changes made to the survey after the piloting process.
2.4. Survey Data Analysis
Statistical analysis of data was performed using SPSS version 20.0 (SPSS, Inc.,
Chicago, IL, USA). All statistical values were considered significant at the p level of
0.05.
Changes
Changed open-ended question prompt from "parent" to a "group of parents" and
included a larger box in which teachers could write their answers to give them a
better idea of how long of an answer was desired
Took out a series of 5 questions on common mythos about inquiry (taken from
the INSES) for space purposes and because some teachers had trouble with them
Added in the challenge: "finding inquiry-based lessons"
Took out the section on benefits of inquiry-based instruction for space purposes
and because there was not much varibility in responses
Added in the phrase "on average thoughout the year" to be more explicit about
this question because teachers reported having trouble thinking of average
answers based on the subject, class, week, etc.
Changed the upper category on the Likert scale of this question from 'daily' to
'during every class period' because some teachers had trouble with the original
scale if their class only met 2-3 times a week
Added in examples of science and science teaching methods workshops as
some teachers had trouble differentiating between the two. Also lowered the
range on this question from 10 years to 5 years as many teachers found it difficult
to remember how many events they have been to in the past 10 years
Added in the phrase "not including summer experiences" in the prior work
experience question
Re-worked the educational background section for formatting to make it easier
to fill out
Got rid of the question "the faculty at my school is supportive of inquiry-based
science instruction" as the responses were very similar to the question "my school's
administration is supportive of inquiry-based science instruction"
Survey section
Understanding
of inquiry
Challenges:
Reported
enactment of
inquiry:
Background
information:
-
30
2.4.1. Range of Understanding
To report on the range of science teachers understanding of inquiry, we coded the
open-ended survey question about teachers understanding of inquiry (question 13) by
looking for evidence of the eight scientific practices described in the Framework (NRC,
2012). Teachers were given an overall understanding of inquiry score based on the
following criteria: 0 if the response did not include any scientific practices, 1 if the
response included one practice, 2 if the response included two practices, and 3 if the
response included three or more practices. Descriptions of coding for the scientific
practices follow (the entire code book, including examples, can be found in Appendix B):
1. Asking questions and defining problems The teacher indicated that they have their
students ask questions about the natural or human built worlds, distinguish scientific
from nonscientific questions, or ask questions about features or patterns in
observations they make.
2. Developing and using models The teacher indicated that they have their students
construct or use models as representations of events or systems, or they have their
students discuss the limitations and precision of a model.
3. Planning and carrying out investigations The teacher indicated that they have their
students plan investigations, such as by deciding what data are to be gathered, what
tools are necessary to do the gathering, or identifying necessary controls, and/or carry
out investigations.
-
31
4. Analyzing and interpreting data The teacher indicated that they have their students
analyze/interpret data such as looking for patterns, making tables, charts, or graphs,
and/or recognizing when data are in conflict with expectations.
5. Using math and technology1 The teacher indicated that they have their students use
mathematics and/or computer technology in analyzing data.
6. Constructing explanations The teacher indicated that they have their students
construct explanations of phenomena using their knowledge of accepted scientific
theory. To count, the answer had to specifically state that students constructed an
explanation of their observations or a phenomenon, not simply answered a question.
7. Engaging in argument from evidence The teacher indicated that they have their
students construct scientific arguments showing how the data support the claim
and/or identify and discuss weaknesses in scientific arguments using reasoning and
evidence.
8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information The teacher indicated that
they have their students communicate their ideas and accomplishments about a
system under study by producing oral presentations or written words, graphs, tables,
or diagrams, and/or reading scientific text and explaining the ideas being
communicated. To count, the answer had to include or imply that the students are
1 Statements from this practice were not included in the survey, but it was looked for when coding this
question.
-
32
communicating information in written or spoken form, not just simply speaking or
conversing in general.
In addition to scoring teachers responses to question 13 between 0 and 3, we also
noted common themes used to describe inquiry-based teaching as we read through
teachers responses. We evaluated the noted themes for overlap, and after combing some
together, ended up with 12 distinct categories. Teachers answers to this question were
also coded for these 12 themes, described below:
A. Exploring/ discovering The teacher indicated that inquiry-based science teaching
involves students exploring or discovering science topics, concepts, or ideas.
Alternatively, they indicated that inquiry-based science teaching avoids excessively
detailed, cookbook like procedures, instead being more of an open-ended approach
where students guide their own learning.
B. Constructing knowledge The teacher indicated that inquiry-based science teaching
allows students to construct their own knowledge about science processes and/or
content, for example by students facing or confronting misconceptions. Answers in
which constructing knowledge was not explicit such as figuring out answers or
drawing conclusions were not counted.
C. Hands-on The teacher indicated that inquiry-based science teaching is a hands-on
approach or involves hands-on activities.
-
33
D. Student-centered The teacher indicated that in inquiry-based science teaching,
students are not told what to do or think by the teacher, and instead ask their own
questions and/or design and carry out their own investigations.
E. Preparation for future school/work/life The teacher indicated that inquiry-based
science teaching is helpful for teaching students skills that will help prepare them to
succeed in work, life, or school after their K-12 education.
F. Relevancy The teacher indicated that inquiry-based science teaching makes learning
science content and processes relevant for students by connecting their learning to
real world problems.
G. Teamwork The teacher indicated that in inquiry-based science teaching, students
often work in groups, and/or it helps students develop the ability to problem solve as
a group.
H. Engagement in science The teacher indicated that inquiry-based science teaching
helps to promote the active engagement of students in activities, labs, problem
solving, etc, and/or increases student interest and motivation to learn about science.
I. Deeper understanding of science content knowledge The teacher indicated that
inquiry-based science teaching reinforces science standards, helps students better
-
34
understand science content, and/or helps students remember information and/or
concepts longer than with other methods of teaching.
J. Critical thinking/ problem solving skills The teacher indicated that inquiry-based
science teaching allows students to access and practice higher-level thinking skills
such as critical thinking and problem solving and/or the fact that inquiry-based
science teaching does not involve memorization of facts.
K. Models what real scientists do The teacher indicated that inquiry-based science
teaching allows students to more closely model the work of real scientists, allowing
them to experience the sciences the way that scientists to, and allowing them to learn
to think like a scientist.
L. Okay to get the wrong answers The teacher indicated that in inquiry-based science
teaching, it is okay for students not to know the answers and to be wrong or to learn
by trial and error; it is okay if the conclusion is different from the initial prediction
because the main goal is more the thinking process than getting the correct answer.
We also compared teachers who received a score of 0 for the understanding of
inquiry variable (n = 88) to teachers who received a score of 2 or 3 (n = 34) to determine
if there were differences in where they learned about inquiry. Specifically, we used a chi
square test between these two groups of teachers and the five options in the question
(school workshop, college classes, outside workshop, peers, and reading articles).
-
35
Additionally, we compared the total number of places in which the two groups learned
about inquiry using an independent samples t-test. To further determine if there were
differences in the number of places in which teachers with different understanding of
inquiry scores learned about inquiry, we also compared teachers who received 0s on
this scale to only the teachers who received 3s (n = 13). Finally, to determine where
teachers views about inquiry originated, we compiled frequency data from the
appropriate questions.
2.4.2. Perceived Challenges
To learn about teachers perceived challenges of using inquiry-based instruction,
we compiled frequency data from this question.
2.4.3. Reported Use of Practices
To establish how often teachers reported enacting scientific practices in their
classroom, we created a single variable (reported use of scientific practices) based on
responses to the 21 scientific practice questions. To compute this variable, we used both a
reliability analysis and a principal components analysis (PCA). First, we conducted a
reliability analysis to see if the triplicate statements for each practice could be averaged
together into a single value. Cronbachs alphas were greater than .70 for each triplicate,
and so seven summary values were created based on the mean value for each. The PCA
of the seven values resulted in five factors with eigenvalues greater than one (more
details of the groups will be provided in the results), and so we computed the summary
variable as equal to the mean of the five scales. Pearson correlations between the 5
groups were significant at the 0.01 level, providing justification for the single variable.
-
36
To decide if there were differences in how often teachers reported using the five
practices, we completed a repeated measures ANOVA between the means of each. To see
if there was a relationship between teachers understanding of inquiry and their reported
use of scientific practices, we performed a linear regression between these two variables.
2.4.4. Relationship with Background Factors
To determine if teachers understanding and/or reported use of inquiry differed
based on background factors, we conducted linear regressions between these variables
and the surveyed demographic factors (Table 2.3). The resulting factors with statistically
significant correlations to teachers reported use of inquiry were then broken into two
categories teachers background characteristics and school characteristics. We
conducted a multiple regression analysis with each to evaluate how well these
characteristics predicted teachers reported use of scientific practices in the classroom.
For the teachers background characteristics category, the predictors were the average
amount they had read the three national documents, their science lab or field experience,
if they had learned about inquiry-based teaching methods in school workshops, and if
they had learned about inquiry-based teaching methods by reading articles. For the
school characteristics category, the predictors were the importance of high stakes test
preparation in the teachers school, if the teacher has a lot of freedom in designing their
curriculum, and if the curriculum they use supports inquiry-based instruction. We also
conducted a multiple regression analysis with all seven measures as predictors to
determine if school characteristics offered additional predictive power beyond that
contributed by knowledge of teachers background.
-
37
In addition to the above analyses, we chose to investigate teachers curriculum
type (commercial, teacher developed, or no specific curriculum) more closely. First, we
conducted a one-way ANOVA to determine if there was a relationship between
curriculum type and teachers understanding or reported use of inquiry. Second, we used
independent sample t-tests to compare the understanding and reported use of inquiry
between teachers who used commercial curricula and those who either developed their
own or who had no specific curriculum. We also used t-tests between these two groups
to investigate whether teachers with certain characteristics (e.g. total years taught, work
experience, etc.) tended to develop their own curriculum.
Lastly, we profiled teachers with the highest understanding and reported use of
inquiry to see where they stood in regards to various background factors and compared
them to the teachers with the lowest understanding and reported use of inquiry. To do
this, we coded the group of teachers with a higher understanding / higher reported use of
inquiry as those who both scored a 2 or 3 on the open-ended question (question #7) as
well as scored above the 75th
percentile on their reported use of inquiry (question #13).
We coded the teachers with a lower understanding / lower reported use of inquiry as
those who scored a 0 on question #7 and below the 25th
percentile on question #13.
Based on these criteria, we identified 9 teachers with a higher understanding/ higher
reported use of inquiry and 18 teachers with a lower understanding/ lower reported use of
inquiry. After identifying the two groups, we then used independent sample t-tests to
compare their background characteristics.
-
38
2.5. Inter-rater Reliability
We performed an inter-rater reliability to verify our coding of the scientific
practices in the open-ended question about teachers understanding of inquiry. The
coders were the author and another graduate student in the Master of Science in Teaching
program. The second coder volunteered for this task and was familiar with the
Framework, but was not involved in research concerning scientific practices or other
themes in the Framework. For training, we asked the coder to read the scientific
practices section in the Framework as well as the code book with the descriptions and
examples of each scientific practice (Appendix B). They then coded all 149 teacher
responses for the eight scientific practices. We calculated Inter-rater reliability as the
percent agreement between the author and coder for each scientific practice.
After this first iteration, percent agreement for each practice was above 90%
except for practice 6, which was 77%. In a discussion with the second coder after
finishing, he explained he had trouble with practice 6 because he thought that simply by
answering a question, students must also be constructing an explanation. Looking
through the surveys he coded as practice 6, it was apparent that he coded many answers
with the phrases finding answers, answering questions, or solving problems. To
clarify this practice, we added the following sentence to the code book: to count, the
answer had to specifically state that students constructed an explanation of their
observations or a phenomenon, not simply answered a question.
Approximately two months after the first iteration, we asked the same coder to re-
code all 149 responses, but this time coding only for practice 6. Before beginning, we
discussed practice 6 with the coder again, and had him read the revised version of the
-
39
practice in the code book. After this second iteration, inter-rater reliability was 99% for
this practice (Table 2.5).
Table 2.5. Inter-rater reliability results.
2.6. Interviews
We conducted short interviews, approximately five-minutes long, to: (1)
corroborate teachers understanding of inquiry and (2) determine if they correctly
interpreted the meaning of individual statements in question 13, which asked how often
teachers had their students do various statements from the Framework. During the
interview, we first asked teachers to describe an inquiry-based science lesson they
recently taught and thought went well in their classroom (this prompt was based on a
similar prompt used by Ireland et al., 2011). Next, after scanning through their responses
on question 13, we chose 1 or 2 statements that the teacher had rated highly (meaning
they reported they had their students do it fairly often). We then read teachers the
statement and asked them to describe what that practice might look like in their
classroom.
Scientific
Practice
%
Agreement
1 92%
2 100%
3 90%
4 97%
5 100%
6 99%
7 96%
8 98%
-
40
All interviews were transcribed in full. To d