ERIC EJ940939: Challenges to Inquiry Teaching and Suggestions for How to Meet Them

2011·0.16 MB·English

by  ERIC

Cassie Quigley, Jeff C. Marshall, Cynthia C. M. Deaton,
Michelle P. Cook and Michael Padilla
Challenges to Inquiry Teaching and
Suggestions for How to Meet Them
Abstract process. Scientists observed, described, still problematic (Flick and Lederman,
Inquiry has been cited as an essential inferred, measured, and hypothesized. 2004). This article focuses on major
goal of science education for decades. They identified and controlled vari- impediments or challenges that the
While terminology has evolved over ables, designed experiments, and drew authors often see when helping teach-
time, the notion that students need to conclusions. The belief was that if stu- ers to understand and implement
apply various analytic and thought dents practiced and mastered the dis- inquiry in their classrooms.
related skills in order to better learn tinct skills, they would naturally put
underlying scientific concepts and them together to solve problems. Challenges related to inquiry
processes, remains central to science We have come a long way since that Below are four challenges that
education. This article looks at four time. We no longer try to break the teachers incur when implementing sci-
major challenges facing teachers as whole into distinct parts. Instead, the entific inquiry in classrooms. We, then,
they implement inquiry based teach- National Science Education Standards describe some of our efforts in address-
ing—including measuring the quality describe inquiry as “the diverse ways ing and overcoming these challenges.
of inquiry, using discourse to improve in which scientists study the natural • Challenge 1: How can we mea-
inquiry, pursuing the goal of teaching world and propose explanations based sure the quality of inquiry as
content through inquiry methods, and upon evidence…” (NRC 1996, p. 23). implemented in the classroom?
learning how to effectively manage an A subsequent publication, devoted • Challenge 2: How can teachers
inquiry classroom. An analysis of each entirely to the conceptualization of use discourse and discussion to
of these issues, along with implemen- inquiry, set out its essential features— encourage more effective inquiry-
tation strategies, is provided. basically a description of how you based learning?
would know inquiry when you see it • Challenge 3: How can we get
Introduction (NRC, 2000). These essential features teachers to think of content and
Inquiry, in different guises and with describe what the learner will do when inquiry as not mutually exclusive,
different terms, has been cited as one inquiring, including: but rather aspects of the same
of and often the principal goal of sci- • Engaging with a scientific goal?
ence education for decades. In the question, • Challenge 4: How can we help
1930’s and 40’s, it was common to • Participating in design of teachers learn to manage an
find articles that spoke of develop- procedures, effective inquiry classroom?
ing “the habit of scientific thinking” • Giving priority to evidence,
How can we measure
(Blair and Goodson, 1939) and others • Formulating explanations,
that defined elements of the scientific • Connecting explanations to scien- the quality of inquiry as
method (Keesler, 1945). Still others tific knowledge, and, implemented in the classroom?
focused on developing scientific atti- • Communicating and justifying K-12 science teachers reported that
tudes like objectivity, replicability, and explanations. they devote on average 37.3% of their
the value of controlled experiments. time to inquiry during typical les-
But as any science coordinator or sons—higher for elementary teachers
In the 1960’s the lines of research professional developer knows, achiev- and lower for high school teachers
coalesced, even though the notion ing the holy grail of increasing student (Marshall, Horton, Igo, & Switzer,
of breaking the whole into minute understanding via inquiry learning 2009). Despite the perception by class-
pieces remained. Inquiry was called depends on teachers who understand room science teachers that inquiry is
science process skills, a set of dis- it, fully and completely, as a func- regularly occurring in the classroom,
crete characteristics of the scientific tion of their disciplinary knowledge. the quality of this inquiry tends to
Research indicates that teacher under- be confirmatory or activity centered
Key words: Inquiry, science, teacher standing of inquiry, including its many in nature where the teacher explains
education, professional development
pedagogical and curricular nuances, is a phenomenon or concept and then
Spring 2011 Vol. 20, no. 1 55
directs the student in how to work with four possible levels of performance asked to question, theorize, and apply
the concept via a prescriptive activity. (Pre-inquiry—Level 1, Developing ideas. The concept is often embedded
While this approach may be appropri- Inquiry—Level 2, Proficient Inquiry— within the investigation instead of pre-
ate when mastery of a skill is of pri- Level 3, and Exemplary Inquiry— ceding the investigation, and students
mary importance such as learning how Level 4). EQUIP was written and are commonly more involved in the
to perform a titration or how to use a validated so that Level 3 is the target entire planning, collection of data,
microscope, it is not appropriate when for high quality inquiry. Further, our and sense making portion of the learn-
trying to get students to develop criti- preliminary data suggest that the qual- ing. Level 4 occurs when the teacher
cal thinking skills through investiga- ity of inquiry (measured by EQUIP) is is able to facilitate learning experi-
tion. Teachers can, however, improve an excellent predictor of both student ences where the students successfully
the quality of inquiry being facilitated science content and process knowledge and consistently engage in rigorous,
in the classroom if they are provided a (measured by Measures of Academic content-embedded inquiry learning
mechanism to transform their instruc- Progress test; NEA, 2004). experiences that challenge high level,
tional practice. The support necessary In helping teachers to transform developmentally appropriate thinking.
to help scaffold teacher transforma- their practice to higher quality inquiry- Achieving Level 4 is not always the
tion usually includes a combination based teaching, we have found that desired goal, because there are times
of approaches (e.g., curricular, profes- it is most helpful when teachers tar- when the teacher needs to assume a
sional development, learning commu- get 2-3 indicators (e.g., Order of more active role in guiding and scaf-
nities, administrative), but for lasting Instruction or Questioning Level) at a folding the learning experience.
success, it needs to be clear, focused, time to improve. This allows them to Two of the 19 total indicators are
and sustained over time (Supovitz & be more focused and intentional about discussed below to illustrate how an
Turner, 2000). the improvements until the new skills indicator can help make teaching prac-
become automated in their practice. As tice more focused and intentional.
Measuring inquiry through one begins using EQUIP, it is helpful
EQUIP. initially to establish a baseline of teach- Order of instruction.
One mechanism that can help sup- ing performance. This can be done by
First, the Order of Instruction
port teachers to improve the quality of videotaping and then scoring the les-
indicator, within the Instruction
inquiry-based learning facilitated in the son later, by having a peer teacher or
construct, challenges teachers to
classroom is the Electronic Quality of instructional coach observe a lesson
facilitate learning that provides
Inquiry Protocol (EQUIP) (Marshall, and then score the performance, or
opportunities for students to
Horton, Smart, & Liewellyn, 2008). by working with a team of teachers to
explore ideas before formal expla-
EQUIP provides a reliable, valid mea- analyze and score the lesson (similar
nation occurs. In so doing, a Level
sure of the quality of inquiry being to a lesson study with EQUIP used to
3 score is earned. In contrast, a
facilitated and is focused on four major focus the discussion).
Level 2 performance is earned
pedagogical constructs—instruction, The scores when used in conjunc-
when the teacher asks students
curriculum, discourse, and assessment tion with the rubric help articulate
to explore after receiving expla-
(Marshall, Smart & Horton, 2010). what occurred during the lesson. For
nation and the teacher does most
The descriptive rubric associated instance, a Level 1 tends to be a more
of the explaining. By realizing
with the instrument allows teachers, traditional, teacher-dominated les-
the difference between a Level 2
instructional coaches, administrators, son where students tend to be passive
and Level 3, most lessons can be
and researchers alike to measure and recipients of information. Level 2 is
adapted by reversing the order of
discuss what occurred or has been very commonly seen among teach-
instruction. This seemingly small
occurring and then allows individuals ers and is where students are busy
change often results in higher stu-
to chart tangible, intentional steps that working with activities related to the
dent engagement, and what previ-
can be undertaken to improve the over- concept, but students largely are not
ously was a lengthy lecture often
all quality of instruction (Marshall, required to think deeply about the
becomes review as students help
Smart, & Horton, 2010). material. These activities tend to be
to create the knowledge through
Each of the 19 indicators, that com- dominated by more prescriptive forms
explanations of results and con-
prise EQUIP’s four constructs, is of learning where students follow a
clusions. This intentional change
designed to measure a critical aspect predetermined series of steps after
in instruction can with practice
associated with the quality of inquiry the concept has been already told to
allow teachers to transform the
that occurs during a lesson; each details the students. By Level 3, students are
typical curriculum that is provided
56 Science educator
by book companies or available about science. But science discourse a triadic structure. In this triadic
via the Internet. can be used as a way to encourage structure, it becomes very difficult to
inquiry. In this section, we discuss encourage and teach the use of inquiry
how encouraging scientific discourse strategies. However, if teachers change
Complexity of questions.
can promote inquiry-based learning. the third move in this sequence from
The discourse that is facilitated is Science discourse creates its own set evaluative to feedback to become IRF
critical for engagement and active of challenges because of the special- (teacher initiation, student response,
learning. As such, the Complexity ized language necessary to understand and feedback from the teacher) this
of Questions indicator provides the discipline. However, this language creates an environment more closely
guidance into the interactions that or set of words is necessary for stu- related to everyday conversation.
are facilitated in the classroom. A dents to truly inquire about science and During this everyday conservation, stu-
Level 3 is earned when questions with scientists. In general, school sci- dents often begin dialoguing with each
challenge students to explain, rea- ence requires students to integrate the other. This student-to-student discus-
son, and/or justify their thinking. practices of prediction, observation, sion in scientific discourse often pro-
In contrast, a Level 2 is earned analysis, and presentation with science motes scientific inquiry as the dialogue
when the questions focus mostly reading, writing and language use (Lee and feedback is continuous and not
on one correct answer with some & Fradd, 1998). This ability to ‘talk predetermined by the teacher. Because
open response opportunities pro- science’ has served as a gatekeeper the desire is that students will begin to
vided. Simply by asking more to the sciences, preventing many stu- inquire more readily, ultimately we are
‘why’ questions and fewer ‘what dents from having access to academic asking teachers to relinquish control
is’ questions the teacher can begin success and successfully engaging of the discussions in order to encour-
to change the interactions in the in scientific inquiry (Lemke, 1990). age conversations and allow students
classroom. Level 3 instruction Instructional discourse or discourse to inquire during discussions. Teachers
increases the degree of rigor in initiated by the teacher in science can promote inquiry through feedback
the class and requires students to classrooms often includes techniques and continuing the conversation.
be thoughtful about their work, for asking questions (e.g. small-group
their responses, and their overall or whole-class instruction). Below we Providing follow-up information.
reasoning. outline prominently used discourse Another way teachers can use IRF
techniques with suggestions for incor- to promote inquiry in their classrooms
The highlighted indicators pro-
porating inquiry into them. is to change the third move to provide
vide two examples of immediate,
follow-up information to extend stu-
intentional steps that can be taken to
Providing feedback. dents’ ideas, highlight the significance
improve teaching practice. It should
First, we encourage teachers to of students’ contributions, and make
be pointed out that just as it takes time
examine their questioning techniques. connections to other experiences.
to learn how to teach more effectively,
Teacher-questioning techniques are Then, the teacher can help students
it also takes students time to adjust to
a central component to leading class- devise a research problem, think about
new ways of learning. So, in order to
room discussions. Close analyses a variety of solutions, and reconsider
encourage student success, be sure that
of classroom interactions expose their procedure—in other words, sup-
changes are made gradually to allow
unspoken classroom rules and previ- port the student in engaging in scien-
students time to acclimate.
ously unnoticed norms for classroom tific inquiry. IRE sequences tend to
behavior. For example, most teach- occur when the topic is introduced in
How can teachers use discourse
ers use a teacher questioning tech- response to the teacher’s questions,
and discussion to encourage
nique called IRE (teacher initiation, and when the discussion’s purpose is
more effective inquiry-based
student response, and teacher evalua- to elicit scientific knowledge (Wells,
learning? tion) sequences (Mehan, 1978). This 1993). However, when the student ini-
In some disciplines like math- format often can stifle discussion and tiates the discussion or the discussion
ematics the quality of discourse in induce passivity in students. In every- focuses on shared classroom experi-
a classroom is a surrogate for level day conversation, a question is typi- ences, the teacher and students offer
of thinking within the discipline. cally followed by an answer, without both detailed and significant contri-
Science discourse can cause students a follow-up evaluation. In this way, butions to the discussion. Thus, tri-
to become disengaged from science classrooms deviate from everyday con- adic dialogue can serve an important
if they are not accustomed to talking versation in having, overwhelmingly, non-evaluative interactional function
Spring 2011 Vol. 20, no. 1 57
allowing teachers and students to co- they need to cover. Often times, this critical reasoning skills to develop an
construct knowledge as well as cre- struggle leads them to rely on direct understanding of scientific concepts.
ate a space for teachers to formatively instruction to more efficiently con-
assess students’ knowledge. When vey scientific knowledge to students. Evidence-based explanations.
teachers are not just evaluative but also However, these methods of instruc- One strategy teachers might use to
supportive, it provokes deeper think- tion reinforce the idea to students that help students develop an understand-
ing beyond simple recall. Thus, stu- science is in its “final form” (Duschl, ing of both inquiry and scientific
dents begin to formulate hypotheses, 1990). Rather than learning scientific knowledge is to help students develop
make predictions and inferences, and principles in an isolated and superficial evidence-based explanations. Students
draw conclusions. manner, science teachers must learn should work like scientists and conduct
Overall, scientific discourse can to use strategies to facilitate student investigations that involve “the collec-
serve a function for eliciting infor- understanding of both inquiry and con- tion of relevant evidence, the use of
mation from students. However, the tent knowledge. logical reasoning, and the application
manner in which a teacher encourages of imagination in devising hypotheses
scientific discourse affects students in Linking scientific content and and explanations to make sense of the
a variety of ways and has the oppor- inquiry. collected evidence” (p. 12, AAAS,
tunity to create a space for inquiry. As While the National Science 1993). Essentially, we advocate chang-
Lemke (1990) points out, in content- Education Standards (1996) call for ing the order of instruction so students
centered classrooms, teacher-student teachers to help students acquire explore a concept though investigation
interactions tend to occur mainly content knowledge as well as utilize first and then begin to apply the appro-
through IRE sequences that allow the methods of science in a comple- priate scientific principles to explain
teachers to maintain an authorita- mentary way, in the typical science their understanding.
tive role and control every aspect of classroom, we still see science pro- To encourage students to develop
the conversation by asking questions cess skills being taught in isolation. scientific explanations based on data,
and evaluating students’ responses. Often times, teachers devote the first teachers can engage their students
However, these alternative instruc- couple of weeks of instruction to in a three-step process (Luft, Bell, &
tional discourses mentioned above learning about the scientific method, Gess-Newsome, 2008). First, students
are critical as they allow teachers and making observations and inferences, should develop scientific questions or
students to adopt more equal interac- designing controlled experiments, and identify problems to be investigated.
tional patterns in which authority over measuring without ever requiring stu- To address this question or prob-
the learning of science is shared by dents to apply these skills to develop lem, students should be encouraged
both teachers and students. As a result, an understanding of science concepts to make a claim. After they develop
students are given opportunities to later in the school year. One reason a claim, students can begin to collect
develop and maintain a sense of own- for this problem could stem from the evidence to support their claim. This
ership and agency over their learning way standards are interpreted. Many step requires that students apply many
experiences; thus allowing teachers to states include a “scientific inquiry” scientific processes while they are
promote better discourse and higher standard for each grade level. Some studying a topic, such as asking ques-
quality inquiry learning. teachers may view the standards as a tions, identifying variables, designing
sequential list of topics to be covered, experiments, constructing data tables
How can we get teachers to therefore they teach inquiry in isola- and graphs, and sharing ideas within
think of content and inquiry tion from scientific content. Textbooks groups. Finally, students should be
as not mutually exclusive, but designed to align with state standards supported as they make connections
may only serve to reinforce this sepa- between their claims and the evidence
rather aspects of the same
ration. Another reason for the division they have collected. During this pro-
goal?
between inquiry and content could be cess, students are analyzing relation-
One often hears teachers complain
due to the model teachers experienced ships and making evaluations about
that they cannot implement an inquiry
in their own science courses; for exam- their evidence and conclusions; in
classroom because they have so much
ple, at the college-level, most science addition, they must apply and be able
content to cover. With the pressure
courses separate lecture and laboratory to explain the appropriate scientific
of high-stakes testing and curricu-
sections. Regardless of the root of the principles. The benefit for the students
lum standards sometimes emphasiz-
problem, doing inquiry requires engag- in developing scientific explanations
ing breadth instead of depth, teachers
ing students in combining process and involves having a more accurate view
struggle with the amount of content
58 Science educator
of the way science works, develop- control—control of instruction, con- students with impartiality and equity
ing a stronger understanding of con- trol of students, control of the class. means addressing the unique needs of
tent knowledge, demonstrating better Unless teachers address this fear, they each learner, which requires that all
problem-solving skills, having a better will likely continue to rationalize their are treated equitably Thus, success-
ability to apply inquiry and showing unwillingness to implement inquiry ful teachers avoid playing favorites
more interest and curiosity in science instruction instead of asking what is and focus on meeting the needs of all
(Shymansky, Hedges, & Woodworth, best for students and then working to learners in the classroom. Confidence
1990). achieve that goal. After all, manage- in teaching, a self-assurance that gives
ment issues are the main reason that teachers comfort with the subject and
Developing appropriate people leave the teaching profession the activity at hand, can be developed
assessments. (Barmby, 2006). With knowledge or enhanced through an examination
In order for students to show their and effort, however, this fear can be of the strengths and weaknesses in
understanding of both inquiry and sci- addressed and overcome. their teaching practice. Possessing a
ence content, teachers need to revisit We have found teachers’ receptivity strong understanding of science con-
the way they assess their students. to inquiry instruction rests, at least in tent knowledge is a great step in build-
While traditional assessments (e.g. part, on their success, or lack thereof, ing confidence in science teaching;
multiple choice tests) may provide in managing the classroom effectively. however, it should not overshadow
insight into student understanding of Classroom management is undoubt- teachers’ understanding of the peda-
content, they do not usually indicate edly one of the most critical aspects gogy necessary for teaching science,
students’ understanding of the pro- associated with effective instruction their relationships with their students,
cesses necessary to do science or stu- and learning. Poor management can and their reflections on their teaching.
dents’ application of that knowledge. destroy any chance for meaning- “Withitness” is a global understanding
To truly understand what students both ful learning—including inquiry. To of what is transpiring in the class at a
know and can do in the science class- address issues of classroom manage- given time; the awareness develops
room, teachers need to add a variety ment that impact inquiry instruction, when teachers show they care about
of assessments to their repertoire. The we will discuss three essential keys their students, their students’ learning,
use of performance assessments (e.g. to creating an appropriate affective and the content that they teach.
having students demonstrate how they classroom for inquiry learning and
go about lighting a bulb with a battery, strategies for organizing the physical Creating strong relationships in a
bulb, and wires) allows students to classroom for effective instruction. The respectful environment.
engage in a research question or solve three keys for creating an appropriate We know that the needs, the abili-
a problem. Plus, it provides teachers affective classroom include: building ties, and the goals of our students are
with opportunities to examine students a solid presence, creating strong rela- all unique, so our career is a personal
in action and scaffold them in think- tionships in a respectful environment, one that requires a professional rapport
ing critically about science investiga- and setting high expectations. with and understanding of each stu-
tions. Performance assessments can be dent that we encounter. Thus, our task
informal or formal and may include Building a solid presence. as teachers includes facilitating the
classroom discourse, student demon- A commanding classroom presence development of a caring and respectful
strations, and the development of mod- carries a firmness, fairness, confidence, learning environment. Many battles
els. While there are multiple types of and “withitness” that allow the class- are waged because of respect, or a
performance assessments that can be room to operate safely and respect- lack of it. But a common mistake is to
used, they must all address issues of fully—thus allowing and encouraging think that respect is given and earned
students’ ability to apply inquiry, criti- learning to take place. Though these in the same way. Respect is typically
cal thinking skills, and knowledge of qualities tend to improve with time and culturally dependent. In some set-
science content (Hein & Lee, 2000). experience, they can also be learned tings, respect is commonly yielded up
so that novice teachers can establish front—you are respected until you lose
How can we help teachers learn a commanding presence and quickly it. In other settings, particularly those
to manage an effective inquiry pass the “tests” that their students will in which the teacher is not a member
classroom? inevitably send their way. A teachers’ of the dominant culture, respect often
One of the greatest concerns for firmness is often necessary in helping must be earned. Thus, if you possess lit-
teachers in implementing inquiry- set reasonable boundaries for guid- tle background in cultural understand-
based instruction is the fear of losing ing classroom interactions. Treating ing of your setting, it is easy to become
Spring 2011 Vol. 20, no. 1 59
frustrated when students do not bestow These global management issues Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interac-
you with immediate respect (Marshall, can help teachers transform their tion in science: Teacher questioning
2008). Even though gaining respect classrooms and improve the quan- and feedback to students’ responses.
International Journal of Science
may take more time in some settings tity and quality of inquiry. There are
Education, 28, 1315-1346.
than others, there are still things that undoubtedly other issues that remain
can be done. Let the students know that include making gradual changes Duschl, R.A. (1990). Restructuring sci-
that you have general expectations with students, managing cooperative ence education: The importance of theo-
ries and their development. New York:
regarding decency and civility that all learning environments, learning how
Teachers College Press.
must adhere to. Students don’t have to to question effectively in an inquiry
agree with everyone in the class, but classroom, working with diverse Hein, G. & Lee, S. (2000). Assessment
the teacher must set expectations that learners, and pacing so that learning of science inquiry. In National Science
Foundations (Eds.), Inquiry: Thoughts,
students should listen to each other, is maximized (Marshall & Horton,
Views, and Strategies for the K-5
hear each other out, and find appropri- 2009). Although all of these could not
Classroom (pp. 99-108). Retrieved
ate ways to dissent when appropriate. be addressed here, we hope this arti-
from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/
cle will start many conversations and
nsf99148/
Setting high expectations. encourage further reading into the per-
Keesler, O. (December, 1945). Science
Expectations can be co-created with tinent issues for teachers and schools.
Education, XXIX, 273-278. Science—A
students. When students feel they have
process approach. Retrieved from www.
a voice and ownership in their learn- Conclusion
coe.ufl.edu/esh/Projects/sapa.htm
ing, they are more likely to engage in While we understand the challenges
Lee, O., & Fradd, S. H. (1998). Science for
learning and defend it when scoffed at addressed in this article do not consti-
all, including students from non-English
by peers. One means of setting expec- tute the entirety of all the challenges
language backgrounds. Educational
tations is to have students set short that science teachers face when incor-
Researcher, 27, 12-21.
and long-term goals. Long-term goals porating inquiry-based learning, we
Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science.
may be about their performance in the believe that these challenges repre-
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
course overall. Short-term goals may sent some of the largest impediments
have to do with what they will try to to teaching with scientific inquiry. We Luft, J., Bell, R.L., & Gess-Newsome, J.
achieve today. Goal setting has become hope teachers will be able to utilize our (2008). Science as inquiry in the second-
ary setting. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
particularly popular in middle school ideas for incorporating more effective
settings and provides one strategy to inquiry in their classrooms and that Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons:
narrow the achievement gap. Having they will be able to address these criti- social organization in the classroom.
students focus on clear goals each day cal challenges. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
helps them both to organize and pri-
oritize, which are two very difficult References Marshall, J. C., Horton, B., Smart, J.,
things for many students. Encouraging American Association for the Advancement & Llewellyn, D. (2008). EQUIP:
of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks Electronic Quality of Inquiry Protocol.
students to set their own goals and
for science literacy. New York: Oxford Retrieved from www.clemson.edu/iim
meet those goals on a day-to-day basis
University Press.
provides an ongoing challenge for Marshall, J. C. (2008). Overcoming student
students and may minimize boredom. Barmby, P. (2006). Improving teacher apathy: Motivating students for aca-
recruitment and retention: The impor- demic success. Lanham, MD: Rowman
Many of the so-called “trouble mak-
tance of National Research Council. & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
ers” are not malicious, but rather bored
(1996). National science education
students in need of challenges that are Marshall, J. C., & Horton, R. M. (2009).
standards. Washington, DC: National
provided by both goal setting activi- Developing, assessing, and sustaining
Academies Press.
inquiry-based instruction: A guide for
ties. Many discipline problems are a
Blair, G.M. & Goodson, M.R. (November, math and science teachers and lead-
student’s call for help rather than a cal-
1939). Development of scientific think- ers. Saarbruecken, Germany: VDM
culated attempt to sabotage the class.
ing through school guidance. School Publishing House Ltd.
A respectful classroom environment
Review, XLVII, 695-701.
Marshall, J. C., Horton, B., & White, C.
that provides both goal setting and
Bodzin, A., & Beerer, K. (2003). Promoting (2009). EQUIPping teachers: A proto-
goal meeting opportunities to support
inquiry-based science instruction: The col to guide and improve inquiry-based
inquiry learning will provide multiple
validation of the Science Teacher Inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher, 76(4),
opportunities for student success.
Rubric (STIR). Journal of Elementary 46-53.
Science Education, 15(2), 39-49.
60 Science educator
Marshall, J. C., Horton, B., Igo, B. L., & Shymansky, J.A., Hedges, L.V., &
Michael J. Padilla is Director of the
Switzer, D. M. (2009). K-12 science Woodworth, G. (1990). A reassessment
Eugene T. Moore School of Education
and mathematics teachers’ beliefs about of the effects of inquiry-based science
at Clemson University. He has served as
and use of inquiry in the classroom. curricula of the 60’s on student perfor-
PI on three large NSF and numerous US
International Journal of Science and mance. Journal of Research in Science
Department of Education grants for a total
Mathematics Education, 7(3), 575-596. Teaching, 27(2), 127-144.
of over $35 million in funding and was one
Marshall, J. C., Smart, J., & Horton, R. Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. (2000). The of the writers of the U.S. National Science
M. (2010). The design and validation of effects of professional development on Education Standards. Dr. Padilla was rec-
EQUIP: An instrument to assess inquiry- science teaching practices and class- ognized as the Aderhold Distinguished
based instruction. International Journal room culture. Journal of Research in Professor and received The Walter B. Hill
of Science and Mathematics Education, Science Teaching, 37(9), 963-980. Award for Distinguished Achievement
8(2), 299-321. in Public Service from the University of
Georgia. He served as president of the
National Research Council. (1996). Cassie Quigley ([email protected])
National science education standards. National Science Teachers Association in
Washington, DC: National Academies Jeff C. Marshall ([email protected]) 2006.
Press.
Cynthia C. M. Deaton (cdeaton@clem-
National Research Council. (2000).
son.edu)
Inquiry and the national science edu-
cation standards. Washington, DC. Michelle P. Cook ([email protected])
National Academies Press.
Michael Padilla ([email protected])
Northwest Evaluation Association.
(2004). Reliability and validity esti-
The authors are all science educators at
mates: NWEA achievement level tests
Clemson University, Clemson, South
and Measure of Academic Progress.
Carolina. Our collective mailing address
Retrieved from http://www.nwea.org
is:
Sampson, V. (2004). The science manage- 102 Tillman Hall
ment observation protocol. The Science Clemson University
Teacher, 71(10), 30-33.
Clemson, SC 29634
Spring 2011 Vol. 20, no. 1 61