ERIC EJ906185: Teaching Science Using Guided Inquiry as the Central Theme: A Professional Development Model for High School Science Teachers

2010·0.18 MB·English

by  ERIC

Anil Banerjee
Teaching Science Using Guided Inquiry
as the Central Theme: A Professional
Development Model for High School
Science Teachers
Abstract Introduction • Learners evaluate their expla-
The author describes a profes- Inquiry has been envisioned in nations in light of alternative
sional development model for high the National Science Education explanations, particularly
school science teachers based on Standards (NSES) as a pedagogi- those reflecting scientific
the framework of inquiry and sci- cal method that models scientific understanding.
ence standards. The ‘Learn-Teach- practice and encourages students to • Learners communicate and jus-
Assess Inquiry’ model focuses on gain content knowledge. Scientific tify their proposed explanations.
guided inquiry labs as the central inquiry is defined by NSES as fol- (p. 19)
theme and builds on these labs to lows (National Research Council
reinforce science concepts and abili- [NRC], 1996): Professional Development
ties to understand and engage in Scientific inquiry refers to the and NSES
inquiry in accordance with national/ diverse ways in which scientists
Most teachers of science do not
state science standards. A profes- study the natural world and pro-
get the opportunity to learn science
sional development model for high pose explanations based on the
through inquiry, yet the NSES pro-
school science teachers based on the evidence derived from their work.
fessional development standards
framework of inquiry and National Inquiry also refers to the activities
require their students to learn sci-
Science Education Standards has of students in which they develop
ence content through the process
been developed and field tested for knowledge and understanding
of inquiry. Therefore, direct expe-
three years. This model requires of scientific ideas, as well as an
rience and continued practice with
intensive involvement of teachers understanding of how scientists
the processes of inquiry are needed
and project personnel in workshops, study the natural world (p. 23).
in order to develop in teachers the
material development, and round- The fundamental abilities to do
knowledge and skills related to
the-year follow-up school visits for a inquiry in grades 9-12 are listed in
inquiry that will enable them to
three-year cycle. the Inquiry and the National Science
effectively employ this technique
The professional development Education Standards as follows
in their classrooms.
improves the ability of teach- (NRC, 2000):
The NSES content standards in
ers to do and understand inquiry. • Learners are engaged by scien-
inquiry pertain to abilities understand
Consequently, teachers organize tifically oriented questions.
and engage in inquiry. Direct expe-
more guided inquiry labs and post- • Learners give priority to evi-
rience and continued practice with
lab discussion and motivate stu- dence, which allows them to
the processes of inquiry are needed
dents to ask more questions in their develop and evaluate explana-
in order to develop knowledge and
classrooms. tions that address scientifically
skills about inquiry. Teachers need
oriented questions.
to introduce students to the funda-
• Learners formulate explanations
Key words: professional development, guided mental elements of inquiry and help
from evidence to address scien-
inquiry labs, inquiry teaching, national science students engage in and reflect on
tifically oriented questions.
education standards the processes they use to do inquiry.
Fall 2010 Vol. 19, No. 2 1
Inquiry-related knowledge and class- Inquiry and Professional NSF funded research experiences for
room experience must be combined Development Models teachers (Blanchard, Southerland, &
with subject matter knowledge in Granger, 2009).
Various professional development
ways that allow students to use sci-
(PD) models on inquiry teaching
entific reasoning and critical think- have been reported in the literature. Theoretical Framework and
ing to develop their understanding of
Professional development programs Objectives of the Study
science. Inquiry also requires learn-
must teach inquiry knowledge as A teacher professional develop-
ers to be able to determine answers
well as assess and address teachers’ ment model ‘Learn-Teach-Assess
to questions such as: “What counts?
core teaching conceptions (Lotter, Inquiry’ (LTAI), which is based on
What data do we keep? What data do
Harwood, & Bonner, 2007). Pine et the theoretical framework of inquiry
we discard? What patterns exist in the
al. (2006) reported that historically as envisioned in the NSES as well
data? Are these patterns appropriate
low achieving students could succeed as collaborative leaning principles,
for this inquiry? What explanations
in standards-based inquiry science has been developed and field tested.
account for the patterns? Is one expla-
when the curriculum was developed The LTAI model focuses on guided
nation better than another?”(NRC,
and aligned with professional devel- inquiry labs as the central theme
2000, p. 18). Teachers need to be
opment and district policies. Large- and builds on these labs to rein-
well versed in inquiry, but unfortu-
scale, high-quality, intensive training force science concepts and abilities
nately many of them do not get the
within a context of standards-based to understand and engage in inquiry
opportunity to learn science through
systemic reform could be a powerful in accordance with national/state
inquiry during their grade school and
mechanism for sustained impact on science standards. The PD program
college education. A survey shows
teachers (Supovitz, Mayer, & Kahle, requires the intensive involvement
that 91% of universities in the United
2000). A meta-analysis of 61 studies of teachers and project personnel in
States use direct laboratory instruc-
(Schroeder, Scott, Tolsom, Huang, workshops, material development,
tion in general chemistry (Abraham
& Lee, 2007) identified enhanced and round-the-year follow-up school
et al., 1997). Similarly, almost half
context, collaborative learning, and visits as part of a three-year cycle.
of surveyed high school chemistry
inquiry as the most effective teaching The PD is conducted slowly but
teachers indicate that they do not
strategies. A significant difference intensively over a period of time in
use any inquiry laboratory exercises
was found in cognitive activities and order to build abilities to understand
in their classroom (Deters, 2005).
questioning skills between teachers and engage in inquiry. This is done in
Professional development standards
in professional development pro- part through the use of the apprentice-
require that schools provide students
grams modeling authentic inquiry ship model concept of imparting and
the opportunity to learn essential
and programs that simulated inquiry developing skills. Other important
science content through the process
(Hanegan, Friden, & Nelson, 2009). factors of this model include giving
of inquiry (NRC, 1996). In order to
Other effective professional devel- teachers enough time to learn at their
accomplish this, teachers must have
opment models include: professional own pace and providing an opportu-
a sound content knowledge base that
learning communities (Nelson, nity to internalize inquiry processes
includes an understanding of the
2009), guided instruction (Kirschner, and become comfortable using
nature of inquiry, its central role in
Sweller, & Clark, 2006), modeling inquiry in the classroom. The essen-
science, and the skills and processes
instruction based on conceptual mod- tial features of classroom inquiry and
of inquiry. The standards emphasize
els of physical phenomena (Jackson, their variations have been described
inquiry into teaching and learning,
Dukerich, & Hestenes, 2008), Iowa in the NSES (Table 1). Table 1 shows
and they place a reduced emphasis
Chautauqua Science – Technology the guiding framework of procedures
on lecture. These standards rein-
– Society program for in-service considered as guided inquiry in the
force the expectation that science is
teachers (Yager & Akcay, 2007), present study, and the areas marked
to be learned through investigation
Content-Based collaborative inquiry in bold are considered to be attri-
and inquiry rather than lecture and
model (Zech, Gause-Vega, Bray, butes of guided inquiry according to
reading.
Secules, & Goldman, 2000), and the LTAI model.
2 ScieNce educator
The major objectives of this PD to understand and engage in with teaching experience ranging
program are: inquiry. from 5 to 15 years. Each has a teach-
1. Development of guided inquiry Objectives 1 through 5 are dis- ing degree in the field and also a MS
labs in collaboration with cussed in this paper. The last objec- degree in science education. Seven
teachers. tive, which has to do with assessing teachers teach high school physical
2. Development of flexible les- the effect of guided inquiry on stu- science and three teach chemistry.
son plans connecting guided dent learning of content knowledge, Teachers can use the PD workshop
inquiry labs to concepts, skills, is in progress as a part of the third hours as either a graduate course or
application in daily life, and year study and will be reported a professional learning unit. Each
national/state science educa- separately. teacher is given a stipend and travel
tion standards. expenses for summer and academic
3. Development of question- Methods year workshops. Supplies, including
ing and post-lab discussion Participants. inquiry lab kits, are also provided to
abilities A small group of 10 teachers from each teacher.
4. Field testing of the guided Muscogee, Harris, and Troup coun-
inquiry labs by teachers in ties in southwestern Georgia were Project team.
their classrooms selected based on their willingness The project team is made up of
5. Modification of the labs based and commitment to participate in this the author as PI, assisted by a sci-
on field testing, and PD program for three consecutive ence education faculty member from
6. Assessment of the effect years. The consent of principals and the College of Education, a graduate
guided inquiry teaching has school districts was also obtained for assistant, and two high school sci-
on student content knowledge participation in this long term study. ence teachers who served as part-
as well as students’ abilities All teachers are from similar socio- time research assistants.
economic urban/rural high schools
Table 1: Essential Features of Classroom Inquiry and Their Variations
Essential Feature Variations
1. Learner investigates Learner poses a question Learner selects a question Learner sharpens or clarifies Learner engages in
scientifically oriented from a pre-established list, the question provided evaluating the question
questions or poses new questions by teacher, materials, or provided by teacher,
another source materials, or another source
2. Learner gives priority to Learner determines what Learner is directed to collect Learner is given data and Learner is given data and
evidence in responding to constitutes evidence and certain data asked to analyze it directed how to analyze it
questions collects it
3. Learner formulates Learner formulates Learner is guided in the Learner is told possible ways Learner is provided with
explanations from explanation after process of formulating to use evidence to formulate evidence and told how to
evidence summarizing evidence explanations based on explanations use evidence to formulate
evidence explanations
4. Learner connects Learner independently Learner is directed toward Learner is given possible
explanations to scientific examines other resources areas and sources of connections
knowledge and forms the links to scientific knowledge
explanations
5. Learner communicates Learner forms reasonable Learner is coached in Learner is provided broad Learner is given steps
and justifies explanations and logical argument development of communica- guidelines to use that and procedures for
to communicate tion that conveys justification sharpen communication communication
explanations for explanations
Fall 2010 Vol. 19, No. 2 3
PD program. year (spring semester). The validity separation of mixtures, density
The components of this three-year and reliability of the test were deter- measurements, single replacement
professional development program mined using standard procedures. reactions and metal reactivity, stoi-
take place as follows: chiometry, periodic trends and prop-
Year 1: Teachers attend a 40-hour Classroom observation. erties of elements, rate of a reaction,
summer workshop over the course of Classroom observation is done by and factors affecting rate of a reac-
10 days, followed by academic year the project team to assess the extent tion. Two sample guided inquiry labs
workshops that take place two hours to which guided inquiry is imple- are given in Tables 2 and 3.
per week for 10 weeks during both mented, including the amount of
the fall and spring semesters. The post-lab discussion and questioning Results and Discussion
schedule includes content updates, engaged in by students. Each teacher Guided inquiry labs.
development of guided inquiry labs, is observed at least four times each In order to lead meaningful
practice using guided inquiry to semester, and inter-rater reliability inquiry activities, teachers need
develop abilities to understand and was determined by standard proce- adequate subject matter con-
engage in inquiry, and development dures to be very high (0.80). tent knowledge. But, content
of questions and post-lab discussion knowledge alone is not sufficient.
strategies. Year 1 uses the appren- Teacher reflection. Teachers must develop abilities to
ticeship model concept to develop Teachers maintain a journal of understand and engage in inquiry
inquiry abilities in teachers. their observations about implemen- before they can effectively teach
Year 2: PD continues with field tation of guided inquiry labs, includ- their students how to engage in the
testing of labs and lesson plans in ing the number of guided inquiry process of inquiry.
project classrooms. This is followed labs and post-lab discussions done Prior to joining this PD program,
up during the workshops with pre- each semester, as well as the fre- the project teachers attended several
sentation of field test reports and dis- quency and types of questions asked district/state level workshops/semi-
cussion, and this feedback is used to by students. Teachers present their nars on inquiry teaching. The district/
modify the labs and lesson plans. reflections during workshops. state level workshops/seminars had
Year 3: Project teachers use guided Classroom observation and teacher concentrated on the theory of teach-
inquiry labs as the central theme to reflection data are collated to calcu- ing through inquiry, but included
teach physical science/chemistry in late percentage of guided inquiry little or no inquiry-based activi-
high schools for two semesters using labs and post-lab discussion topics ties. Similar observations have been
pre- and post- design and assessment covered each semester, as well as the made by other researchers as well
instruments. The last year is focused frequencies of questions asked by (Abraham et al., 1997; Deters 2005).
on studying the effect of PD on stu- students. Roehrig and Luft (2004) reported on
dent content knowledge as well as a study of 10 beginning chemistry
students’ abilities to understand and Guided inquiry labs. teachers with undergraduate expe-
engage in inquiry. Twelve guided inquiry labs have rience that consisted of traditional
been developed in collaboration with testing and laboratory activities
Instruments. project teachers by converting previ- designed to master specific labora-
Science inquiry test: This 15-item ously used “cookbook” labs and by tory techniques. Their high school
test measured abilities to understand selecting new inquiry-based labs. classroom teaching was modeled on
and engage in inquiry. Released The labs have been selected from their personal experiences as under-
tests of the National Assessment of high school curricula in physical sci- graduates and graduate students.
Educational Progress (NAEP) and ence and chemistry and aligned to These teachers did not have access to
other sources were used to develop the Georgia Performance Standards. any inquiry-based chemistry mate-
the test items. A pre-test was admin- Examples of content areas include: rials and struggled to translate their
istered in the fall semester of the introduction to the scientific method, knowledge of chemistry into specific
second year of PD, and the post-test chemical and physical changes, ele- inquiry-based chemistry lessons.
took place at the end of the academic ments, compounds and mixtures,
4 ScieNce educator
Subject matter content knowl- response (C). The follow-up discus- chemistry could be integrated with
edge is an essential requirement for sion revealed that 60% of teachers inquiry skills to develop abilities and
doing meaningful inquiry. Hence, did not have a clear understanding of understanding about inquiry.
it is ensured during PD workshops the concepts involved (specific heat
that teachers have adequate con- and conduction of heat). Abilities to do and understand
tent knowledge in physical sci- Another example of a guided inquiry.
ence/chemistry. However, content inquiry lab for the teachers is given The abilities of teachers to do
knowledge alone is not sufficient. in Table 3. The purpose of this lab and understand inquiry is assessed
As stated in the NSES: “Prospective is to guide the teachers through the through a pre-test and post-test on the
and practicing teachers must take stages of a meaningful inquiry on a subject of inquiry. The results show a
science courses in which they learn chemical reaction that highlights the 30% increase in the mean scores at
science through inquiry, having the importance of observation, question- the end of one academic year. The
same opportunities as their students ing, and use of science knowledge progression of teachers on inquiry
will have to develop understand- for further inquiry. This lab demon- abilities is formatively assessed
ing” (NRC,1996, p.60). Apart from strates how content knowledge in throughout the academic year using
content knowledge, teachers must
Table 3. A guided inquiry lab in physical science/chemistry:
have the abilities to understand and
engage in inquiry. What happens when you burn magnesium metal in air? A guided inquiry lab
The PD program starts with a sim-
Hint for teachers: This is not a lesson plan. You will develop flexible lesson plans for teaching
ple guided inquiry lab that introduces this topic after you do the investigation yourself. Identify the national and state science education
a research question, hypothesis, and standards. This guided inquiry lab is to be done by students with minimal teacher support. So, have
patience and help students to explore and come up with their own questions, results, and possible
experiment (Table 2). Teachers are
explanations. Provide hints/help when needed. Hints are provided in parentheses. During PD
asked to generate their hypotheses
workshop, you will complete this lab.
regarding the research question.
Objectives:
Then, they do the experiment to test
1. To understand the process of investigative approach to science inquiry
their hypotheses and formulate new
2. To understand how knowledge of content and skills are important to conducting inquiry
ones (if needed) based on experi-
processes
mental evidence. Initially, about 3. To identify content, process, and nature of science standards which could be taught using this
40% of teachers chose the correct lab.
Guided inquiry procedure :
Table 2. Introduction to guided inquiry: Research
question, hypothesis, and experiment 1. Take a piece of magnesium ribbon (one inch). Look at the color and other physical properties
before burning: (Grey/silvery, thin and strong strip, can be twisted)
Research question:
2. Observation is a very important step in science inquiry. You will make observations while doing
An ice cube is put in each of the following:
this lab. What equipment do you need? (Mg ribbon, tongs, Bunsen burner, test tubes, diluted
A. Tightly wrapped in aluminum foil hydrochloric acid, watch glass, safety goggles)
B. In a tin can 3. Burn the magnesium and record all observations. (Bright flame, product color looks different
C. In a glass jar from magnesium metal, color is white or there is a mix of white/grey powder)
D. In a glass jar that is completely covered in 4. What questions do you have based on these observations? Write down these questions.
aluminum foil (Lead questions: What are the major observations? Is burning magnesium a chemical or
In which case would the ice cube melt the physical change, or both? Is the product different from the reactant magnesium metal?)
LEAST over a period of 30 minutes? 5. Selecting one question at a time, discuss these topics in your group and suggest a method and
Your hypothesis: A/B/C/D procedure you could use to investigate that question.
Reason for your hypothesis: Discuss your proposed methods with the teacher and finalize your plan.
Do the experiment to test your hypothesis. 6. Question: Is the product different from reactant magnesium metal?
What was your observation and conclusion? Place small amounts of magnesium metal and the product left after burning in two separate
Did the experiment support your hypothesis? test tubes. Add 10 drops of diluted hydrochloric acid to each test tube. Observe and record
If not, what is your new hypothesis? what happens. (Hint- Possible observation: Gas comes out (fizzing occurs) when magnesium
What are the reasons for changing your metal reacts with hydrochloric acid in the test tube and no fizzing takes place in the test tube
hypothesis? containing the product. The gas being released is hydrogen. To verify this, put a burning match
What did you learn about science inquiry from over the mouth of each test tube. If hydrogen gas is produced, a popping sound will be heard.)
this activity? continued on next page.
Fall 2010 Vol. 19, No. 2 5
Table 3, continued of labs conducted using guided
inquiry was only 58%. Classroom
7. What are your inferences? Does the product contain magnesium metal? (The product does not
have magnesium metal, since it did not react with hydrochloric acid). observation and teacher reflection
8. Question: What does the product contain? (Possible student questions/hypotheses: Does it provide some reasons for this lack
contain Mg as metal? Answer: No. What happened to the magnesium metal? Hypotheses: of implementation: time constraints
It evaporated to air; converted to another form; the product does not contain magnesium.)
(inquiry labs require more lab time),
9. Does the product contain magnesium in some other form? If yes, in what form? (Discuss this
pressure to structure classes in a way
topic in groups and then generate a whole class discussion. What do we do to investigate the
possibility that magnesium is present in some other form in the product? Discuss with students that maximizes course completion,
the need for content knowledge and abilities to engage in inquiry. Then demonstrate to students pressure to concentrate on prepar-
a lab test that detects magnesium ions in a known sample and perform the same test on the
ing students for state level testing,
residue left after burning magnesium. If the test shows the same results in both known and
and difficulties associated with moti-
unknown samples, what do you infer? (The unknown has magnesium ion.)
10. What do you conclude? (The product contains magnesium ion.) vating all students to participate in
11. Challenge students to come up with a possible explanation of how the magnesium metal inquiry. Johnson (2006) reported
became the magnesium ion in the solid product after burning in air. Is this a chemical or that even with effective professional
physical change?
development, science teachers still
12. Use this lab to develop concepts of chemical and physical changes, chemical reactions, ionic
encounter technical, political, and
bonding, and the transfer of electrons from magnesium to oxygen during the formation of
magnesium oxide. cultural barriers to the implemen-
13. Extension of this lab: What is the empirical formula of the product formed after burning Mg? tation of inquiry. More support is
required for professional develop-
Figure1. Increase in guided inquiry labs from fall 07 to spring 08 ment efforts to be successful, such as
resources and time, as well as admin-
120
istrative buy-in and support.
100 fall 07 spring 08
abs 80 Post -lab discussion.
y l
uir 60 Effective post-lab discussion is
q
% in 40 an important component of this PD
model. It is based on the premise
20
that post-lab discussion will enhance
0
cooperative and collaborative learn-
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 Mean
Project Teachers ing in the spirit of inquiry, as well
as provide students with experience
classroom observation and teacher in guided inquiry labs by 25-50% sharing and presenting their inquiry
reflection data. The results are shown (after excepting Teacher T4, who data and evidences. This experience
in Figure 1 and Table 4. was still struggling with inquiry after is expected to help students to know
A lab is considered to be guided a year) from fall to spring semester is and appreciate the ways that scien-
inquiry if it fulfills some features quite impressive. The mean increase tists share and present their findings
of inquiry as given in Table 1 and was 33%, and there was a large effect (NRC, 1996). The PD model also
is not a totally teacher-centered lab. size. provides guidelines for teachers on
The project teachers started teaching There is no silver bullet for ways to organize post-lab discussion
using the inquiry labs in fall 2007 inquiry: Science educators need to (Table 5).
after receiving one year PD on devel- have patience and understand the The extent to which teachers orga-
oping and doing the labs themselves factors that impede implementa- nize post-lab discussion is monitored
during the 2006-2007 academic tion and transition to inquiry. through classroom observations and
year of the project. An average of teacher reflections. The changes in
about 25% of labs done during the It is rather frustrating to note that percentage of post-lab discussions
first semester used guided inquiry. even after one full year of intensive during fall 2007 and spring 2008 are
Although this is not great progress, it PD and one semester of teaching given in Figure 2 and Table 5.
is definitely impressive. An increase using inquiry, the mean percentage
6 ScieNce educator
Table 4. Change in % inquiry labs conducted during fall 07 and spring 08 Abilities to ask questions.
Fall 2007 Spring 2008 Difference Development of abilities to ask
Teacher/Statistics % inquiry labs % Inquiry labs % inquiry labs questions is an important part of
inquiry teaching and learning (NRC,
T1 25 50 25 1996, 2000). This is also a major
T2 20 40 20 objective of this PD model. The proj-
ect teachers get opportunities to ask
T3 25 50 25
questions while doing inquiry labs
T4 25 40 15
and post-lab discussion during PD
T5 30 70 40
workshops. It is expected that teach-
T6 30 60 30
ers will promote the development
T7 25 55 30 of abilities related to questioning
T8 30 75 45 in their classrooms while teaching
T9 20 70 50 using guided inquiry labs. The fre-
quency of questions asked is rated
T10 25 75 50
as rarely, sometimes, or frequently
Mean 25.5 58.5 33.0
through classroom observations and
SD 3.7 13.5
teacher reflections. The results are
Effect size 3.33
shown in Figure 3.
These results are encouraging
A 20-50% increase in post-lab dis- further in spring, but even those
because the percentage of ‘fre-
cussion is observed after one semes- teachers that had not previously been
quently’ and ‘sometimes’ asked
ter of inquiry teaching. The mean focusing on post-lab discussions
questions increased between the fall
increase from fall to spring semes- showed an impressive change in
2007 and spring 2008 semesters.
ter was 30% with an effect size of this area. These results show that the
Even in fall 2007, 30% of students
1.4. Some teachers (T1, T10,) were PD model is effective in developing
asked questions frequently, and the
doing a substantial amount of post- experience and confidence in teach-
proportion increased to 60% in the
lab discussion in the fall semester ers to organize effective post-lab dis-
spring. The data shows that the PD
and maintained or increased the level cussion in their classrooms.
model is effective at helping teach-
Table 5. Post-lab discussion
ers to motivate students to ask more
1. Organize a post-lab discussion for 30 minutes after each guided inquiry lab. questions, which is an essential part
2. First, organize group discussion on lab results and interpretation, followed by of inquiry-based learning.
presentation of group reports to the whole class.
3. Ask students why different groups think different ways and how they would resolve
Preliminary student data.
the differences. Encourage each group to synthesize their findings and conclusions
The preliminary data from two
based on whole class discussion.
project schools’ chemistry classes
4. Then you (the teacher) should summarize the post-lab discussion and offer your ideas/
(Teacher T1 and T10; student sam-
comments, being sure to connect the inquiry-based lab activities to the academic
ples 50) on student pre- and post-test
content being covered.
5. Wrap up post-lab discussion with questions such as: scores in science inquiry show an
Q 1. What are “data” in your lab today? increase of 20%. An attitude survey
Q 2. What are the evidences you collected? on inquiry teaching also provides
Q 3. If a scientist were to perform the lab you did today, would he/she complete it in the some interesting results: 83% of stu-
same way? dents like guided inquiry; 54% feel
If not, what do you think the scientist would do? (Hint: Scientists follow similar
that inquiry helps them to improve
procedures to discuss and share their viewpoints)
their self-confidence; and only 40%
Q 4. Do you see any similarity between you and a scientist? (Hints: Both raise questions,
favor teacher-instructed labs. More
hypothesize, design experiments, collect data and evidences, and develop
than 50% of students think that a
explanations/theories)
mix of inquiry and teacher-instructed
Fall 2010 Vol. 19, No. 2 7
Figure 2. Increase in post-lab discussion from fall 07 to spring 08 labs is better than the exclusive use
of either strategy. Of these students,
120
60-70% plan to pursue engineer-
100 ing or science majors in college.
n fall 07
ussio 80 spring 08 Hinoqwuiervye irs, nstoutd uesnetfsu tle innd p troe pthairninkg t hfoart
c
dis 60 graduation tests and college courses,
b
a because they have learned from their
tl
s 40
o older peers that hardly any inquiry
p
%
is done in college courses. These
20
results highlight the necessity of
0 continued emphasis on inquiry as an
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 Mean
instructional tool for students at all
Project Teachers levels of education.
Table 6. Change in % post-lab discussion during fall 07 and spring 08 References
Abraham, M. R., Craolice, M. S., Graves,
Teacher/statistics Fall 2007 Spring 2008 Difference in
A. P., Aldhamash, A. H., Kihega, J. G.,
% post-lab discussion % post-lab discussion % post-lab discussion
Gil, J. G., & Varghese, V. (1997). The
T1 80 100 20 nature and state of general chemistry
T2 20 50 30 laboratory courses offered by colleges
and universities in the United States.
T3 25 45 20
Journal of Chemical Education, 74,
T4 25 50 25
501-504.
T5 20 45 25
Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A.,
T6 25 70 45 & Granger, E. M. (2009). No silver
T7 30 80 50 bullet for inquiry: Making sense of
teacher change following an inquiry-
T8 20 50 30
based research experience for teach-
T9 30 70 40
ers. Science Education, 93, 322-360.
T10 75 90 25
Deters, K. M. (2005). Student opinions
Mean 35.0 65.0 30.0
regarding inquiry-based labs. Journal
SD 22.7 20.0 10.5 of Chemical Education, 82, 1178.
Effect size 1.4 Hanegan, N., Friden, K., & Nelson, C.
R. (2009). Authentic and simulated
professional development: Teachers
Figure 3. Changes in frequency of questions asked by students from fall 07 to spring 08
reflect what is modeled. School
Science & Mathematics, 109, 79-94.
ents 70 fall 07 Jackson, J., Dukerich,L., &Hestenes,
d 60
u spring 08 D. ( 2008). Modeling instruction: An
t
y s 50 effective model for science education.
b
s 40 Science Educator, 17, 1-17.
n
o
sti 30 Johnson, C. C. (2006). Effective pro-
e
qu 20 fessional development and change
% in practice: Barriers science teachers
n 10
a encounter and implications for reform.
e
M 0 School Science & Mathematics, 106,
rarely sometimes frequently 150-161.
Frequency
8 ScieNce educator
Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., & Clark, Yager, R. E., & Akcay, H. ( 2007). What
R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance results indicate concerning the suc-
during instruction does not work: An cess with STS instruction. Science
analysis of the failure of constructiv- Educator, 16, 13-21.
ist, discovery, problem-based, expe-
Zech, L. K., Gause-Vega, Cynthia, L.,
riential, and inquiry-based teaching.
Bray, M. H., Secules, T., & Goldman,
Educational Psychologist, 41, 75-86.
S. R. (2000). Content-based collabora-
Lotter, C., Harwood, W.S., & Bonner, tive inquiry: A professional develop-
J.J. (2007). The influence of core ment model for sustaining educational
teaching conceptions on teachers’ use reform. Educational Psychologist, 35,
of inquiry teaching practices. Journal 207-217.
of Research in Science Teaching, 44,
1318-1347.
Anil C. Banerjee, Ph.D. is an associate
National Research Council. (1996).
professor of chemistry, Department of
National science education standards.
Chemistry, Columbus State University,
Washington, D.C.: National Academy
4225 University Avenue, Columbus, GA
Press.
31909. Correspondence concerning this
National Research Council. (2000). article may be sent to banerjee_anil@
Inquiry and the National science edu- colstate.edu
cation standards. Washington, D.C.:
National Academy Press. Acknowledgements: The author
wishes to thank Susan Hinson, chem-
Nelson, T. H. (2009). Teachers’ collabor-
istry teacher, Lagrange High School,
ative inquiry and professional growth:
Lagrange, GA and all other project
Should we be optimistic? Science
teachers for their contributions to this
Education, 93, 548-580.
work.
Pine, J., Aschbacher, P., Roth, E., Jones,
M., McPhee, C., Martin, C., Phelps, The research was supported by a
S., Kyle, T., & Foley, B. (2006). Teacher Quality grant from the
Fifth graders’ science inquiry abili- University of Georgia (sub award
ties: A comparative study of students RH216-241/3840228).
in hands-on and textbook curri-
cula. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 43, 467-484.
Roehrig, G. H., & Luft, J.A. (2004).
Inquiry teaching in high school chem-
istry classrooms: The role of knowl-
edge and beliefs. Journal of Chemical
Education, 81, 1510-1516.
Schroeder, C. M., Scott, T. P., Tolson, H.,
Huang,T-yang., & Lee, Yi-H. (2007).
A meta –analysis of national research:
Effects of teaching strategies on stu-
dent achievement in science in the
United States. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 44, 1436-1460.
Supovitz, J. A., Mayer, D. P., Kahle, J.
B. ( 2000). Professional development
in the context of systemic reform.
Educational Policy, 14, 331.
Fall 2010 Vol. 19, No. 2 9