ERIC EJ886175: Teaching Science Methods Online: Myths about Inquiry-Based Online Learning

2008·0.24 MB·English

by  ERIC

Kenneth W. Miller
Teaching Science Methods
Online: Myths about Inquiry-based
Online Learning
The author addresses six myths about inquiry-based online science
delivery and offers some strategies to demonstrate effective online science
teaching.
Introduction the delivery of an online course are David has a two-year associate degree
With universities, teacher education provided. from a community college, and he is
institutions, and high schools gearing Katherine started her degree from also a substitute teacher.
up heavily in online course delivery Montana State University-Billing by Programs in teacher education for
in every discipline, science educators driving three times a week from her learning online have given both these
specifically are asking themselves home and family over 50 miles away. students options to fulfill their dreams
“How do we provide this access to The worst part was not the slippery of becoming teachers that previously
our students and still maintain our roads during the winter or the two- were not available to them. The ben-
pedagogical integrity in science hour-a-day commute. The worst was efits do not stop with the individual.
instruction?” This question seems to that she often ran behind schedule to Rural schools in the Northwest are in
be at the heart of a national discussion. pick up her two sons after school in dire need of elementary and second-
The standards in science promote an her hometown miles away. ary teachers. The state of Montana
inquiry-based approach at both the David lives over 90 miles away is a perfect example. Montana is the
national and state levels, therefore, an from a community college or univer- fourth largest state geographically
arguable difficulty exists in adapting sity. He helps his wife with their tamale in the United States, with many of
a reticent online inquiry approach company business which turns out over its 900,000 people living in remote
that is more consistent with the 600 tamales a week in a hometown areas, hundreds of miles from the
excitement of an inquiry based face- kitchen, and he also drives a school nearest four-year institution. Many
to-face classroom approach. Today’s bus route and works with the school of those seek to finish their degrees in
students require coursework when district’s technology department. elementary and secondary education
they want it, where it is convenient and teach in the schools where they
for them, and how it fits their needs. live, but it is emotionally, physically,
Many students need online delivery and geographically impossible to
because of distance from the university Given the plethora of online restructure their lives and families to
or their already demanding schedules. learning courses at most do so. Providing methods of teaching
Delivering coursework using scientific post secondary institutions, courses online within their regions and
inquiry techniques can be problematic. offering opportunities to intern in the
we as science methods
This paper discusses six myths about schools where they weave theory into
instructors find ourselves
inquiry-based online science delivery. practice helps these students to earn
discussing the issues of
Examples of how to design and their bachelors or masters degrees and
promote inquiry that is embedded in sound pedagogical delivery. become certified teachers.
80 ScieNce educator
Almost every community college Most faculty, though quite
and university within the current pedagogically sound for on campus
Instruction in an online
milieu offers online course offerings, delivery, also understand that teaching
format requires that faculty
and science teacher educators often online requires a different mindset
re-think the tried and true
find themselves in a quandary. and delivery style. A small on-
methods they use to teach
Coursework and scheduling for online campus survey showed that 0 faculty
delivery increases, and there exists on campus. members were questioned prior to
a philosophical struggle between experiencing, developing and teaching
perceived appropriate teaching courses online. All responded that they
continue by stating that approaches
strategies that promote the national were quite hesitant to teach online,
should be used to help students to
and state science standards and what and most reported they did not think
“construct new understandings,
many believe we are capable of doing it was possible to teach their courses
through experiences that extend and
in online delivery platforms. Given the and their content totally online, void
challenge what they already know” (p.
plethora of online learning courses at of face to face interaction. However,
). Loucks-Horsley et al., thoroughly
most post secondary institutions, we after planning online delivery and
relate these practices to teacher
as science methods instructors find actually experiencing teaching online,
education. They state that “engaging
ourselves discussing the issues of this same faculty reported a new
teachers in learning experiences that
sound pedagogical delivery. understanding of delivery methods
enhance their understanding” (p. 2)
Mission statements of public and discussed how much learning
of science concepts and appropriate
universities have at their heart outreach took place in their online courses
pedagogy should be a definite
and accessibility, yet many state (Miller & Knuth, 2004). Some faculty
priority. They suggest that teachers,
funded institutions do not provide, or echo, “It can’t be done! To prepare
like students, learn best by doing
cannot provide, outreach opportunities science teachers appropriately, you
science in an inquiry approach,
to their constituency unless those have to be able to monitor student
investigating and constructing their
opportunities are offered online. learning, model teaching strategies
own understandings. Loucks-Horsley
Distance to universities, in many for the student, and mentor students
suggests that professional development
rural states is a barrier to possible on- in their teaching careers.” Generally,
must include the modeling of effective
campus attendance and participation; these words originate from faculty
learning environments.
however, providing access to state relatively inexperienced in online
These reasons make online learning
institutions is the duty, and many delivery and/or those that lack the
attractive and challenging. Gill (2003)
times, the mission of those institutions. technological expertise to format an
suggests that almost 20% of training
Access to institutional grounds should inquiry-based online course. Faculty
in “world class organizations” is being
mean more than being physically with no experiences with online
delivered online with an even greater
able to set foot on the university teaching typically made comments
percentage foreseen for the near
campus quad. Using metaphoric such as these:
future. Change of any kind is difficult
language like “e-learning” or “open- • I think it will compromise quality,
and hence, fraught with myths. This
education” advocates have hailed
and that we will eventually lose
paper will discuss six myths of online
online learning as the harbinger of a
our share of the market to larger
learning in an inquiry-based science
complete transformation in teaching
universities with more attractive
methods course and begin to construct
and learning (Cox, 2005). A synthesis
transcripts.
a better understanding of the power of
of the professional development
online science content and pedagogical • When I first heard about online
principles found in the standards,
learning. Some strategies will be instruction, I thought, ‘I don’t
Loucks-Horsley, Stiles, and Hewson
provided to demonstrate effective like it and I don’t think I will
(996) suggest that there should
online science teaching. ever do it.’
be an emphasis on “inquiry-based
Myth One: Good on campus face to After having taught their course
learning, problem-solving, student
face instructors make good instructors online, faculty became more aware of
investigation and discovery, and
online. the variety that online delivery could
application of knowledge” (p. ). They
Fall 2008 Vol. 17, No. 2 8
produce. They then made comments who teach online should receive information to make choices that
like these: training in online communications arise every day. Everyone needs
• After teaching an online class, and course facilitation (Kleinman, to be able to engage intelligently
I think I really like teaching 2005). in public discourse and debate
online. I get to know my students Being void of visual cues, online about important issues that
individually. Each one becomes teaching forces instruction to be involve science and technology,
unique, and I learn about each more reflective and planned. “It is and everyone deserves to share
one’s strengths better than when true that face-to-face pedagogy can in the excitement and personal
I had them in class. I also have and should be used to inform online fulfillment that can come from
the opportunity to relate each unit pedagogy. However, this in itself can understanding and learning about
with a field experience, which not be the driving force to designing the natural world. (National
I am unable to do with face to online courses; one must consider Research Council, 996, para )
face, since we have so many ePedagogy to create a successful and The NSES also suggest that
restrictions on placements in our meaningful course” (Li & Akins, the science teacher must use these
college. 2005). Consequently, a weak on inquiry-based techniques to develop
campus teacher will quite likely make appropriate content development in
• It is great! It forces me to be
a weak online instructor. It can also their students. However, an inquiry-
more constructivist. I lay the
be suggested that without appropriate based online science course is
groundwork. I set the stage. I
e-pedagogical decisions, a good on- certainly not the same as the mail
become a facilitator. The students
campus instructor will not necessarily delivered correspondence course of
have to get involved and take
make a good online instructor. yore. In sharp contrast to some initial
responsibility for their own
Myth Two: Online delivery is perceptions, online courses can be
learning!
similar to correspondence coursework designed to simulate constructivist
Instruction in an online format requires
and limited to content learning teaching and inquiry approaches.
that faculty re-think the tried and
The definitions of inquiry and Figure  represents the continuum
true methods they use to teach on
constructivist teaching come into play from which online courses can
campus. Online delivery, sometimes
when we begin to think of training be designed. If the nature of the
call ePedagogy, does not provide
science teachers to teach. Certainly, the coursework is to develop a content
instructors with instantaneous cues
National Science Education Standards knowledge base and provide student
regarding their teaching and the
(NSES) call for inquiry as a way of access to information, feedback loops
students’ learning. Online delivery
life in the science classroom. from peers or the instructor do not need
must be well thought out in advance,
The world is filled with the to be as prominent an embedded feature
as it is virtually impossible to ‘shoot
products of scientific inquiry, in the course. Hence, an instructor
from the hip’ and improvise online.
and scientific literacy has could possibly design a content driven
Teaching online is different from
become a necessity for everyone. course using a direct instruction
teaching face-to- face, and instructors
Everyone needs to use scientific model with little instructor or peer
Figure 1. Continuum from which online courses can be designed.
Full Inquiry
Direct Hands-on Guided
Constructivist
Instruction Verification Lab Inquiry
Teaching
82 ScieNce educator
feedback. Given such a scenario, an as they discuss with each other pre- Darling-Hammond, 990); and the
online student could sign into a course, determined questions, rather than to 5E teaching model (BSCS, 989) in
determine the unit’s requirements, specific individuals. The instructor previous coursework. Now, you would
read, do activities, research, and can direct or re-direct discussions like to have your students do an activity
comply with the requirements of that of the group, thus providing the to experience one of these. You choose
unit. The student would eventually be necessary feedback loops. Assessment the Conceptual Change Model (CCM)
assessed on those requirements. The can be more individualized and can because you are fairly sure from
unit assessment, likely true/false or provide the instructor with a deeper previous courses that your students
multiple choice, could quite possibly understanding of the students, as seen need experiential opportunities with
be the only feedback that the students Bernoulli’s Principle. You are fairly
might receive. Further, in some cases, certain your students do not understand
that feedback can be totally computer the CCM teaching model, and this
generated. For example, at a nearby It can also be suggested becomes your primary objective for
university, a beginning personal health this unit. Bernoulli’s principle, at
that without appropriate
course is offered each semester with a basic level, suggests that a fluid
e-pedagogical decisions, a
almost one thousand students enrolled. in motion has a lower pressure that
good on-campus instructor
The students read the material and surrounding fluid. Consequently,
will not necessarily make a
respond to the content with exams the surrounding fluid (or air) tends
to determine content understanding. good online instructor. to move from a higher pressure to a
Evaluation is multiple choice and lower pressure. You need to take into
true or false. The computer scores account that your students do not
each student and records the grade in more interactive, discussion-based, have access to equipment other than
in the online gradebook. This type on-campus classrooms. most household materials. Again,
of course is extremely efficient and Myth Three: You cannot model your major objective in this method
generates a large number of FTE for constructivist inquiry teaching of science teaching course is for the
the university. However, it is a course strategies online. students is to understand the steps and
that is based upon content knowledge Further along the continuum (see stages of the CCM and how it is used
understanding; not pedagogical, Figure ), we can establish a guided in the classroom.
attitudinal, and following the inquiry inquiry course nearing full inquiry. A series of digital video segments are
standards-based understandings as How does an instructor design an constructed by the instructor to model
prescribed by the NSES. online course that models appropriate this inquiry-based activity. These
Toward the middle of the continuum, standards based teaching pedagogy? videos represent a modeling of the
a course can be developed that would Certainly, this is a daunting task. It steps of the CCM and help to develop
enable more in-depth instructor requires that the instructor plan for the activity sequentially, following the
feedback and can also include peer- inquiry-based activities that model CCM format. Students are directed
to-peer discussions and feedback. appropriate constructivist techniques, to watch a segment of a video and
Logistically, this type of feedback yet with clearly defined e-pedagogical respond online in a discussion format.
limits the total number of students objectives. Let’s see how this might The following segments and directed
in a course simply because of the be done. student responses show how to model
time required by the instructor to Assume that you have introduced inquiry-based teaching through online
interact with individuals and monitor various teaching models, i.e. The delivery.
their responses. Should there be Learning Cycle (Karplus, 974; Video Segment One: Show a video
a large number of students in the Lawson, Abrahamn, & Renner, where the instructor asks the students
course, the instructor may establish 989), The Conceptual Change to predict what would happen, if
discussion groups to facilitate content Model (Hewson, 992; Posner, anything, to a strip of paper when you
understanding. This plan allows Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 982) blow across it. (the paper moves up
for the instructor to interact and The Instructional Theory Into Practice and flutters). Have the students enter
provide feedback to groups of 5-8 (ITIP) (Hunter, as described by into the discussion area of the online
Fall 2008 Vol. 17, No. 2 83
course, where they are directed to instructor for grading. This assignment students if the requirements for the
predict what will happen to the strip instructs the students to replay the teacher education program are such
of paper and why they think this will entire activity around the concept of that it necessitates an interaction in the
happen. Students are encouraged to Bernoulli’s principle and write what schools. For example, if students are
discuss these concepts within their was occurring in class for each step required to interact in field experience
small groups and try to come up with of the CCM model. This now creates with assignments from a co-existing
a collaborative answer. Once they all student reflection necessary to provide online course, theory into practice can
agree on an answer, direct the students closure, and more importantly, a easily occur, especially if the instructor
to try the activity and discuss their deeper understanding of the CCM, allows online interaction regarding
results. which becomes an assessment tool the field experiences. Miller & Knuth
Myth Four: Interaction among for the instructor. (2004) found that students involved
peers is weak in online delivery in field experiences while taking an
formats. online course scored as well with
Video Segment Two: Students are no statistical differences on student
The very nature of online is
directed to another video, where they teaching measures as students taking
that of interaction within the
are asked to view a folded piece of paper courses on campus. A comparison of
medium.
making a tent. Another video segment an online course and a face-to-face
shows the instructor modeling the set science education course, Harlen &
up of the experiment. The students The interaction between and among Altobello’s (2003) results showed
observe the instructor about to blow peers and the instructor is strong. better learning outcomes online.
through a straw and through the paper Students in an online format are not Certainly, field experiences can
tent. The instructor directs the students allowed to simply sit back and let enhance the understandings presented
to go back into the threaded discussion others discuss and lead discussions. in an online format, but the format can
area and predict what they think will The very nature of online is that of also expand the community of learners
happen, form a consensus with their interaction within the medium. To and decrease the physical isolation
group, and finally try the activity. An encourage this sort of collaboration, it of online learning. Discussions can
additional discussion area is set up for is important to value the discussions, be incorporated easily that allow for
the students to discuss their results. and that should reflect in the course peer to peer and instructor to student
They are then directed to additional grade. My experience and other dialogue that truly dispel the theory
video segments, using different research (Nicaise & Crane, 999) show into practice myth.
materials that also demonstrate the that many of our students tend to do Myth Six: In order to succeed
same concept. Students continue to only that which is required. Valuing as a teacher, students studying to
interact in similar discussions. the amount of collegial interaction be teachers must be able to watch
The instruction proceeds to the stage with peers and the instructor, as a the instructor model an appropriate
of the teaching model, where the concept representative part of the student’s lesson.
is developed. Students are encouraged grade, can certainly enhance the Faculty discussions related to the
to discuss their understandings in discussions. It is in this manner that innovation of online instruction have
additional discussions. From there, myth number four—suggesting a certainly been diverse, if not in a
the instruction leads to another stage weak interaction amongst peers—is direct dichotomy. Faculty argue that
of the CCM into an extension or debunked. learning apart from the intensity of
application of the concept. Students Myth Five: Online delivery does the classroom cannot occur outside
again are led to the discussion area not allow students to take theory into of their ownership, direction, and
where they discuss where they have practice. personal interaction. Many claim the
seen this concept before. The structure of many online need for appropriate modeling, and
Given the primary objective being courses might not allow students to suggest that their materials and mode
an understanding of the CCM, the take theory into practice. It is arguable of presentation will not fit an online
lesson continues with an assignment though, that online might allow for environment. When faculty members
to complete and return digitally to the a more significant experience for discuss the topic of online instruction,
84 ScieNce educator
several suggest that their methods determinants of learning than whether about/offices/list/os/technology/
of teaching are not conducive to an the course is taught face-to-face, plan/2004/site/documents/Kleiman-
online format. In essence, they have online, or some blend of both (Koory MeetingtheNeed.pdf>.
Koory, M.A. (2003). Differences in learn-
difficulty seeing how their materials 2003). As faculty members begin the
ing outcomes for the online and F2F
and classroom instruction can transfer arduous journey toward making their
versions of “An Introduction to Shake-
to an online environment. Some charge online teaching more inquiry-based,
speare.” Journal of Asynchronous
that learning cannot occur in absence of there will be other barriers with more
Learning Networks, 7(2). Retrieved
good instruction, with the understanding myths to dispel.
June 5, 2008 from <www.googlesyndi-
that good instruction occurs only catedsearch.com/u/sloanconsortium?
References
from the pedagogical structure of as_q=&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
face-to-face communication. These Biological Science Curriculum Study- 8&as_epq=differences+in+learning
arguments are of value and need to BSCS, (989). The 5E Model of +outcomes&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_
be understood. Accommodations for Instruction. Colorado Springs, CO. ft=i&as_filetype=&num=50&hq=&b
these understandings are appropriate, Cox, R. (2005). Online education tnG=Search>.
keeping in mind that learning is as institutional myth: Rituals and Lawson, A. (2003). The Neurological
realities at community colleges. Basis of Learning, Development
experiential and most faculty have little
Teachers College Record. Retrieved and Discovery: Implications for
or no online experiences of their own.
January 23, 2008 from <http://www. Science and Mathematics Instruction.
Nor have they been tooled in online
tcrecord.org/PrintContent.asp?Content : Springer Press.
learning e-pedagogy. Still, theoretical ID=2095>. Lawson, A., Abraham, M.R., Renner, J.W.
constructs for learning are similar for Darling-Hammond, L. (990). Instructional (989). A Theory of Instruction: Using
both online and on-campus delivery. policy into practice: The power the Learning Cycle to Teach Science
As discussed in previous myths, being of bottom over top. Educational Concepts and Thinking Skills. The
“sage on the stage” is not a necessary Evaluation in Policy and Analysis, National Association for Research in
component of constructivist “guide on 12(3), 339-347. Science Teaching (NARST) Monograph
the side” learning. Gill, S. (2003). Myths and reality of #, Department of Science Education,
e-learning. Educational Technology, College of Education, University of
Conclusion January-February, 20-24. Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH. ERIC
Harlen, W., & Altobello, C. (2003). An Document #324024.
Certainly as higher education,
investigation of “Try Science” studied Li, C., & Akins, M. (2005). Sixteen myths
secondary education, and other uses
online and face-to-face. Research about online teaching and learning
of internet based learning continue to Report. TERC, Cambridge, MA in higher education: Don’t believe
grow, those asked to design courses Hewson, P. (992). Conceptual Change everything you hear, TechTrends,
and teach those courses will have in Science Teaching and Teacher 49(4), 5-60.
discussions as to the appropriateness Education. A paper presented to Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K., &
of the delivery system. But, as Li and National Center for Educational Hewson, P. (996). Principles of
Akins (2005) suggest, the quality Research, documentation and effective professional development for
of that education is dependent on Assessment. Madrid, Spain. Retrieved mathematics and science education: A
/7/07 at <http://www.learner. synthesis of the standards. National
the clarity of the goals and good
org/channel/workshops/lala2/support/ Institute for Science Education (NISE
e-pedagogy designed to meet those
hewson.pdf>. News Brief), 1(), -6.
goals. We will need committed
Karplus, R. (974). The Learning Cycle. Miller, K, & Knuth, R. (2004). Learning
learners and instructors and excellent The SCIS Teacher’s Handbook. online through ongoing partnerships.
supporting structures willing to learn Berkeley, CA: Regents of the Final Report to Technology Innovative
to implement inquiry based methods University of California. Enhancement Grants: Department of
into online teaching. The potential Kleinman, G. (2005). Meeting the need Education. Washington, DC.
for e-learning is great and certainly for high quality teachers: e-Learning National Research Council. National
in demand. It appears that the quality solutions. US Department of Education Science Education Standards.
of the course content and design, and Secretary’s NCLB Summit: Increasing Washington, DC.
Options through e-Learning. Retrieved
the nature of the interactions with
June , 2008 from <www.ed.gov/
the instructor, are more important
Fall 2008 Vol. 17, No. 2 85
Nicaise, M., & Crane, M. (999). Seal, K. (2003). Transforming teaching
Kenneth W. Miller is professor of science
Knowledge construction through and learning through technology.
education, Department of Educational Theroy
hypermedia authoring. Educational Carnegie Reporter, 2(2), Retrieved
and Practice, Montana State University-
Technology Research and Development, June 2, 2008 from <www.carnegie. Billings, 500 University Drive, Billings,
47(), 29-50. org/reporter/06/learning/index.html>. Montana 590. Correspondence concerning
this article may be sent to <kmiller@
msubillings.edu>.
86 ScieNce educator