TEACHERS UNDERSTANDINGS OF INQUIRY AND REPORTED

USE OF SCIENTIFIC PRACTICES: A SURVEY OF

NSTA CONFERENCE ATTENDEES

By

Ashley M. Young

B.A. Wheaton College, 2007

M.S. University of Maine, 2011

A THESIS

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Science in Teaching

The Graduate School

The University of Maine

May 2013

Advisory Committee:

Daniel K. Capps, Assistant Professor of Science Education, Advisor

Jonathan T. Shemwell, Assistant Professor of Science Education and Cooperating

Assistant Professor of Physics

Craig A. Mason, Professor of Education & Applied Quantitative Methods

ii

THESIS ACCEPTANCE STATEMENT

On behalf of the graduate committee for Ashley M. Young I affirm this

manuscript is the final and accepted thesis. Signatures of all committee members are on

file with the Graduate School at the University of Maine, 42 Stodder Hall, Orono, Maine.

Daniel K. Capps, PhD Date

LIBRARY RIGHTS STATEMENT

In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced

degree at the University of Maine, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available

for inspection. I further agree that permission for fair use copying of this thesis for

scholarly purposes may be granted by the Librarian. It is understood that any copying or

publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written

permission.

Signature:

Date:

TEACHERS UNDERSTANDINGS OF INQUIRY AND REPORTED

USE OF SCIENTIFIC PRACTICES: A SURVEY OF NSTA

CONFERENCE ATTENDEES

By Ashley Young

Thesis Advisor: Dr. Daniel K. Capps

An Abstract of the Thesis Presented

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Degree of Master of Science in Teaching

May 2013

Although national standards call for teaching science through inquiry, many

teachers do not understand what inquiry is. In an attempt to specify what is meant by

inquiry, the new Framework for K-12 Science Education articulates eight scientific

practices that are used by scientists. To gain a better understanding of highly motivated

science teachers knowledge of inquiry and reported use of scientific practices, we

surveyed 149, K-12 science teachers at the 2012 National Science Teachers Association

annual conference. Findings indicated the majority of these teachers had an

understanding of inquiry that did not align with descriptions of inquiry in reform

documents. Few teachers equated inquiry with the scientific practices from the

Framework, and those who did only mentioned a subset of the practices. Surprisingly,

most of these motivated teachers had not read key reform documents about inquiry.

Results also suggest teachers had difficulty distinguishing between some of the scientific

practices. Several factors were correlated with teachers reported use of inquiry,

including teachers background experience, such as if they have read national standards,

and school characteristics, such as if the curriculum they use supports inquiry-based

instruction. Results from this study can be used to inform the science education

community about highly motivated teachers understanding of inquiry and the use of

scientific practices in classrooms across the country. Further, they may help explain how

these practices are influenced by teacher knowledge and other background factors.

Finally, this research will provide important information for teacher education programs

and teacher professional development.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Daniel Capps, for his

guidance, encouragement, and support throughout this project. I am very thankful to

have gotten the opportunity to work with Dan on this exciting project. His guidance has

helped me develop my research and writing skills as well as helped me write and submit

a successful conference abstract and travel grants. I am also grateful to my two other

advisory committee members Dr. Jonathan Shemwell and Dr. Craig Mason for their

input and guidance. Jon was especially insightful in helping me think about the meaning

of my results, and Craig was invaluable in helping me with the statistics.

I would also like to thank the members of my research group Dan, Jon, Shirly

Avargil, Kendra Michaud, Sue Klemmer, and Kaylee Gurschick for listening to my

ideas and providing valuable feedback as I was analyzing my results. I am also very

appreciative to Jason Bakelaar who graciously volunteered to help me with the inter-rater

reliability. Additionally, special thanks to Michael Hubenthal and John Taber from IRIS

for allowing me to share their booth at the NSTA conference. I am also deeply indebted

to all the teachers who piloted my survey and provided me valuable feedback as well as

all the teachers who took time to take the survey and be interviewed by me at the NSTA

conference without you, this project would not have been possible.

Thank you to everyone in the MST program who has made my time here so

enjoyable. I am particularly grateful for all the opportunities I have had through the

program including TAing biology, working at Jackson Lab, and being a Teaching

Partner. In addition to the new friends I have made in the MST program, I am especially

iv

grateful for my friends from across campus in marine science for their friendship as well

as continued support as I started the whole process of writing a thesis for a second time.

Finally, I owe much to my former advisor from marine science Lee Karp-Boss

as without her, I probably would not be where I am today. Lee first introduced me to

science education the first summer I started working with her back in 2008, and ever

since then I knew I wanted to become a science teacher. As a research scientist, she

always had (and still has) such enthusiasm for education and outreach, and it has

certainly rubbed off on me!

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................. iii

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................x

CHAPTER 1. OVERVIEW & LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................1

1.1. Overview and Research Questions ....................................................................... 1

1.2. What is Inquiry? ...................................................................................................2

1.2.1. Perspectives on Inquiry from History ........................................................4

1.2.2. Influence of Reform Documents ................................................................6

1.3. Why Should Inquiry-Based Instruction be Used in the Classroom? ..................12

1.4. Challenges to Inquiry-Based Instruction ............................................................14

1.5. Teachers Understanding of Inquiry ...................................................................16

1.6. Teachers Use of Inquiry ....................................................................................17

1.7. Factors that Influence Teachers Understanding and Use of Inquiry .................19

1.8. Significance of Study .........................................................................................19

CHAPTER 2. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS .................................................22

2.1. Survey Instrument ..............................................................................................22

2.2. Study Participants ...............................................................................................26

2.3. Survey Piloting ...................................................................................................27

vi

2.4. Survey Data Analysis .........................................................................................29

2.4.1. Range of Understanding ..........................................................................30

2.4.2. Perceived Challenges ...............................................................................35

2.4.3. Reported Use of Practices ........................................................................35

2.4.4. Relationship with Background Factors ....................................................36

2.5. Inter-rater Reliability ..........................................................................................38

2.6. Interviews ...........................................................................................................39

CHAPTER 3. RESULTS ..................................................................................................41

3.1. Range of Understanding about Inquiry ..............................................................41

3.1.1. Understanding of Inquiry and Themes Associated with Inquiry .............41

3.1.2. Origin of Understanding ..........................................................................43

3.1.3. Profile of Teachers Who Have a Low and High Understanding

of Inquiry .................................................................................................44

3.2. Perceived Challenges of Inquiry-Based Instruction ...........................................45

3.3. Reported Use of Scientific Practices ..................................................................46

3.4. Relationship with Background Factors ..............................................................49

3.4.1. Correlations with Understanding of Inquiry ............................................49

3.4.2. Correlations with Reported Use of Scientific Practices ...........................49

3.4.3. Multiple Linear Regression ......................................................................50

3.4.3.1. Teachers Background Characteristics ..........................................50

3.4.3.2. Teachers School Characteristics ..................................................52

3.4.3.3. Combination of Teachers Background and

School Characteristics ...................................................................53

vii

3.4.4. Analysis of Teachers Curriculum Type ..................................................53

3.4.5. Comparison of Teachers with a Higher Understanding of

Inquiry/ More Frequent Reported Use of Inquiry with Those

Teachers that had a Lower Understanding of Inquiry/ Less

Frequent Reported Use of Inquiry ..........................................................55

3.5. Interviews ...........................................................................................................56

3.5.1. Teachers Interpretations of Scientific Practice 1 ....................................58

3.5.2. Teachers Interpretations of Scientific Practice 6 ....................................60

CHAPTER 4. DISCUSSION ............................................................................................63

4.1. Range of Understanding about Inquiry ..............................................................63

4.2. Perceived Challenges of Inquiry-Based Instruction ...........................................65

4.3. Reported Use of Scientific Practices ..................................................................66

4.4. Relationship with Teachers Background Factors ..............................................68

4.5. Conclusions and Implications ............................................................................69

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................74

APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................81

Appendix A. Survey Instrument ................................................................................81

Appendix B. Code Book for Question #7 .................................................................87

Appendix C. Sample Interview Transcription ...........................................................95

BIOGRAPHY OF THE AUTHOR ...................................................................................98

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1. Five essential features of classroom inquiry ..................................................9

Table 1.2. Essential features of classroom inquiry and their variations .......................10

Table 1.3. Eight scientific practices from A New Framework for K-12

Science Education ........................................................................................11

Table 2.1. Possible challenges of enacting inquiry included in the survey ..................23

Table 2.2. Statements about scientific practices included in the survey .......................24

Table 2.3. Teacher background factors included in the survey ....................................25

Table 2.4. Changes made to the survey after the piloting process ................................29

Table 2.5. Inter-rater reliability results .........................................................................39

Table 3.1. Distribution of teachers understanding of inquiry scores ...........................42

Table 3.2. Percentage of teachers that included each scientific practice in

their answer to the understanding of inquiry question .................................42

Table 3.3. Percentage of teachers that included each theme in their answer to

the understanding of inquiry question ..........................................................43

Table 3.4. Methods through which teachers have learned about inquiry .....................44

Table 3.5. Reported challenges of enacting inquiry-based instruction .........................46

Table 3.6. Principal components analysis of the 21 statements from

the Framework .............................................................................................47

Table 3.7. The bivariate and squared part correlations of the background

characteristics predictors with teachers reported use of

scientific practices ........................................................................................51

ix

Table 3.8. The bivariate and squared part correlations of the school

characteristics predictors with teachers reported use of

scientific practices ........................................................................................53

Table 3.9. Results of t-tests comparing teachers who use a commercial

curriculum and those who either developed their own or who have

no specific curriculum...................................................................................54

Table 3.10. Results of t-tests comparing teachers with a higher understanding /

more frequent reported use of inquiry and teachers with a lower

understanding / less frequent reported use of inquiry ..................................56

Table C.1. Results from interviewee #10 ......................................................................97

x

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1. Degree to which teachers have read national and state standards ..............44

Figure 3.2. Average score of each scientific practice ...................................................48

1

CHAPTER 1

OVERVIEW & LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1. Overview and Research Questions

Inquiry-based instruction, a type of instruction in which students are engaged in

open-ended, student-centered investigations often set in the context of real-life problems,

has been promoted by educational reform documents for nearly two decades as one of the

central tenants of good science teaching. As opposed to traditional teacher-led

instruction, when engaged in inquiry, students make observations, pose questions, plan

investigations, develop models, and interpret data. Although national and state standards

call for inquiry-based instruction, and there is a body of research that reports on the

benefits of inquiry-based instruction in improving science education, many teachers do

not understand what inquiry is and do not implement inquiry in their classrooms.

The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of the most

motivated K-12 science teachers knowledge and implementation of inquiry-based

science teaching. The research questions guiding the study were the following:

1. What is the range of motivated science teachers understanding of inquiry-

based science instruction and where might this understanding originate?

2. What are these teachers perceived challenges of enacting inquiry-based

instruction?

3. How often do these teachers report enacting scientific practices in their

classroom and is there a relation between their understanding and reported

classroom practice?

2

4. Is there evidence that teachers understanding and use of scientific practices

differ based on background factors (e.g. teaching experience, education, etc.)?

The subsequent sections of this chapter define the term inquiry, including

perspectives from the early 20th

century to todays reform documents, discuss why

inquiry-based teaching methods should be used, outline challenges to enacting inquiry-

based instruction, summarize what we know about how often teachers use inquiry, and

describe factors that influence these practices. Finally, the importance of this study is

discussed.

1.2. What is Inquiry?

For the past two decades, science education reform documents in the United

States have advocated for the teaching of science as inquiry (American Association for

the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1989, 1993; National Research Council [NRC],

1996, 2000). Even though the idea of teaching science as inquiry is not new, there is still

much confusion about inquiry-based instruction (Abrams et al., 2008; Bybee, 2000).

Inquiry has been described as one of the most confounding terms within science

education (Settlage, 2003, p. 34).

Much of this confusion stems from the varying definitions of inquiry in the

science education literature, reform documents, and articles for teachers. Further

confusion stems from the fact that inquiry varies within academic subjects and that it

exists within several different contexts such as scientific inquiry, inquiry-based learning,

and inquiry-based teaching (Newman et al., 2004). Below are some perspectives on

inquiry in the classroom from various sources.

3

Suchman, developer of an inquiry-based teaching program called the Inquiry

Training Project, once said that inquiry is the way people learn when theyre left alone

(Suchman, 1966). In a book aimed for teachers, Hassard (2005) described inquiry as: a

term used in science teaching that refers to a way of questioning, seeking knowledge or

information, or finding out about phenomena (p. 20). In a book for both teachers and

researchers, Lederman (2004) wrote that inquiry was the process by which scientific

knowledge is developed (p. 308). In science education research articles, Edelson et al.

(1999) wrote that inquiry involves the pursuit of open-ended questions and is driven by

questions generated by the learners (p. 393) and Stoddart et al. (2000) referred to inquiry

as giving the students experience with the development of research questions and

testable hypotheses (p. 1222).

Abrams et al. (2008) described inquiry in terms of the various perspectives, or

goals, that different groups have for classroom inquiry. For instance, because inquiry is

supposedly similar to tasks that scientists perform, some believe that inquiry should be a

means to hone students scientific reasoning abilities. Others believe that inquiry should

be a means of interacting with competing knowledge claims and teachers should shift

their focus from doing more traditional hands-on science activities to developing

classroom activities that focus the students on constructing evidence-based rationales that

will be tested and critiqued by their peers and others (Abrams et al., 2008, p. xxii).

Finally, some also believe that inquiry should be a way to enculturate students into

science, thus helping them gain first hand knowledge of how scientific knowledge is

created and how to create that knowledge themselves (Abrams et al., 2008, p. xxiv).

4

Next is a more detailed discussion of the historical roots of inquiry and definitions from

current science reform documents.

1.2.1. Perspectives on Inquiry from History

The roots of inquiry as a key component of science education go back to John

Dewey in the early 20th

century. Before Dewey, most educators viewed science as a set

body of knowledge that students should learn through teacher-led lectures (NRC, 2000).

Dewey, a leader in the progressive movement in education, believed science had been

taught as an accumulation of ready-made material with which students are to be made

familiar, not enough as a method of thinking, an attitude of mind, after the pattern of

which mental habits are to be transformed (Dewey, 1910, p. 122). Accordingly, he

thought schooling overemphasized science as a body of knowledge and believed that the

process or method of science was just as important to learn (Dewey, 1910) and wrote that

scientific inquiry is the active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or

supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further

conclusions to which it tends (Dewey, 1933, p. 9). To him, instruction should be

grounded in what the student already knows and should include the inquiry processes of

reason, evidence, inference, and generalization (Hassard, 2005). Deweys model is

student-centered, with the teachers main role as a facilitator/guide (Barrow, 2006).

After World War II, many people in the United States began to realize our

military and economic success was due to our scientific expertise. With the aim of

producing more scientists, during the late 1950s and early 1960s, two men Jerome

Bruner and Joseph Schwab advocated for the teaching of science by engagement in

5

inquiry. Bruner organized the Woods Hole conference of 1959 which brought together a

group of scientists and psychologists to discuss how to make science education more

engaging for students. He argued that students should experience doing science in order

for them to develop an attitude towards learning and inquiry (Abrams, 2008).

Schwab published articles on inquiry (or enquiry, as he spelled it) where he

advocated for teaching science by engagement in inquiry. He thought that the way

science was being taught did not reflect the methods of modern science: The formal

reason for a change in present methods of teaching the sciences lies in the fact that

science itself has changed. A new view concerning the nature of scientific inquiry now

controls research (Schwab, 1958). Along with Dewey, Schwab saw science as more of

a process than a body of knowledge, and sought to change traditional science curricula as

well as traditional student and teacher roles. Schwab encouraged science teachers to use

the science laboratory to teach science through inquiry by using different levels of

openness in their laboratories. To help science education more closely reflect the work of

scientists, he advocated that laboratories should lead rather than lag the classroom

phase. Instead of the laboratory serving as a place where students simply illustrated what

they already learned, laboratory manuals could be used to pose questions, leaving the

methods up to the students, or students could explore phenomena without questions,

instead asking their own questions, gathering evidence, and constructing explanations

(Dewey, 1960). In addition to using the laboratory, Schwab also proposed a new

approach called enquiry into enquiry in which students would be given reports to read

about scientific research and then have discussions about the problems, data, role of

technology, interpretation of data, and conclusions reached by the scientists (Barrow,

6

2006). In this method, students would learn about scientific knowledge, alternate

explanations, and the use of evidence.

The work of Dewey, Bruner, and Schwab had a major influence on curricular

materials such as the National Science Foundation sponsored curriculum of the 1970s

and the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (Alberts, 2000). Their views of science as

more of a process than a body of knowledge influenced many of the new materials by

placing a greater emphasis on learning the process of science than merely just mastering

the subject matter. Also, instead of having the class solely teacher-led, instructors were

encouraged to take into account students ideas and more laboratory experiences were

provided where students could pursue their own questions (NRC, 2000).

1.2.2. Influence of Reform Documents

The developers of the NSES had this historical perspective in mind as they began

to draft reform documents in the 1980s and 1990s. The reform movement began with

Project 2061, the long-term effort by the Association for the Advancement of Science

(AAAS) toward the goal of nationwide scientific literacy by the year 2061. Their first

document, Science for All Americans (AAAS, 1989), defined scientific literacy and what

students should know and be able to do by the time they graduate from high school

(Barrow, 2006). Their second document, Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy (AAAS,

1993) organized the topics into grade-level groupings. Both documents advocated for

integrating scientific inquiry and content and placed an emphasis on inquiry as the central

strategy for teaching science. Science for All Americans defined inquiry as being:

7

far more flexible than the rigid sequence of steps commonly depicted in

textbooks as the scientific method. It is much more than just doing

experiments, and it is not confined to laboratories. If students themselves

participate in scientific investigations that progressively approximate good

science, then the picture they come away with will likely be reasonably

accurate. But that will require recasting typical school laboratory work.

The usual high school science experiment is unlike the real thing. The

question to be investigated is decided by the teacher, not the investigators;

what apparatus to use, what data to collect, and how to organize the data

are also decided by the teacher (or the lab manual); time is not made

available for repetitions or, when things are not working out, for revising

the experiment; the results are not presented to other investigators for

criticism; and, to top it off, the correct answer is known ahead of time

(AAAS, 1993, p. 9).

The National Science Education Standards (NSES; NRC, 1996) also emphasized

the importance of inquiry. The NSES conceptualized inquiry in three ways (Anderson,

2002). The first, scientific inquiry, refers to the diverse ways in which scientists study

the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their

work (NRC, 1996, p. 23). This definition of inquiry represents an understanding of

science as a process and is independent of instructional strategy. For example, students

should learn that investigations are undertaken for a wide variety of reasons such as to

explain new phenomena or to test conclusions of previous investigations (NRC, 1996).

8

In this category, there is some overlap between understanding scientific inquiry and the

nature of science (NOS). The second, inquiry learning, refers to an active learning

process in which students are engaged. Inquiry learning reflects the nature of scientific

inquiry and encompasses a range of activities. For example, students should be able to

design and conduct scientific investigations, formulate and analyze scientific

explanations, and communicate and defend a scientific argument (NRC, 1996).

The third use of inquiry, inquiry teaching, refers to a characteristic of a desired

form of teaching. The document states that inquiry into authentic questions generated

from student experiences is the central strategy for teaching science (NRC, 1996, p. 31)

and defines inquiry teaching as the activities of students in which they develop

knowledge and understanding of scientific ideas, as well as an understanding of how

scientists study the natural world (NRC, 1996, p. 23). While drawing parallels between

scientific and school science inquiry, the NSES defines five essential features of

classroom inquiry (Table 1.1; NRC, 2000):

9

Table 1.1. Five essential features of classroom inquiry (NRC, 2000).

For instruction to be considered inquiry, it is not necessary for all five of these

features to be present. For example, a lesson that includes all five features of inquiry

would be labeled as full inquiry whereas a lesson with only some of these features

would be partial inquiry (NRC, 2000). Inquiry-based teaching can also vary in the

Essential Feature Description

1. Learners are engaged by

scientifically oriented

questions

Scientifically oriented questions lead themselves to empirical

investigation and can center on objects, organisms, and natural

events in the world. There are two primary kinds of scientific

questions why questions and how questions. Teachers

should help students focus their questions so that they can be

answered using investigations.

2. Learners give priority to

evidence, which allows them

to develop and evaluate

explanations that address

scientifically oriented

questions

As opposed to other ways of knowing such as personal beliefs

or religious values, science distinguishes itself through the use of

empirical evidence as the basis of explanations. Scientists

obtain evidence from observations and measurements taken in

natural settings or in the laboratory.

3. Learners formulate

explanations from evidence

to address scientifically

oriented questions

Scientific explanations are consistent with experimental and

observational evidence and are based on reason. They

provide new understanding by explaining, for example,

relationships or causes for effects.

4.Learners evaluate their

explanations in light of

alternate explanations,

particularly those reflecting

scientific understanding

Scientists always ask questions such as: does the evidence

support the proposed explanation? or, are there any apparent

biases or flaws in the reasoning connecting evidence and

explanation? With this feature of inquiry, students should

ensure that their explanations are consistent with accepted

scientific knowledge.

5. Learners communicate

and justify their proposed

explanations

In order to share their results and explanations, scientists have

to adequately communicate their work. Having students share

explanations can provide opportunities for others to ask

questions, examine evidence, and suggest alternate

explanations.

10

amount of structure that teachers provide for students (Table 1.2). In Table 1.2, the most

open variations of inquiry-based teaching are described in the left-hand column while the

most guided are described in the right-hand column. The more open the inquiry, the

more the responsibility shifts to the student. This continuum of open vs. guided inquiry

is similar to Schwabs laboratory exercises which varied in their degree of teacher

structure and guidance.

Table 1.2. Essential features of classroom inquiry and their variations (NRC, 2000).

Essential

Feature

Learner engages in

scientifically

oriented questions

Learner poses a

question

Learner selects

among questions,

poses new

questions

Learner sharpens

or clarifies

question provided

by teacher,

materials, or other

source

Learner engages in

question provided

by teacher,

materials, or other

source

Learner gives

priority to evidence

in responding to

questions

Learner determines

what constitutes

evidence and

collects it

Learner directed to

collect certain data

Learner given data

and asked to

analyze

Learner given data

and told how to

analyze

Learner formulates

explanations from

evidence

Learner formulates

explanations after

summarizing

evidence

Learner guided in

process of

formulating

explanations from

evidence

Learner given

possible ways to

use evidence to

formulate

explanation

Learner provided

with evidence

Learner connects

explanations to

scientific

knowledge

Learner

independently

examines other

resources and

forms the links to

explanations

Learner directed

toward areas and

sources of

scientific

knowledge

Learner given

possible

connections

Learner

communicates and

justifies

explanations

Learner forms

reasonable and

logical argument to

communicate

explanations

Learner coached in

development of

communication

Learner provided

broad guidelines to

sharpen

communication

Learner given

steps and

procedures for

communication

Variations

More -------------- Amount of Learner Self-Direction ------------- Less

Less ---------------- Amount of Direction from Teacher or Material --------------- More

11

Recently, the NRC released A Framework for K-12 Science Education (NRC,

2012). This Framework will serve as the basis of the Next Generation Science Standards

(NGSS). The Framework contains three major dimensions that science education should

be built around science and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts that unify the

study of science and engineering throughout their common application across fields, and

core ideas in four disciplinary areas: physical sciences, life sciences, earth and space

sciences, and engineering, technology, and the applications of science. The first

dimension, derived from practices that scientists actually engage in as part of their work,

contains eight practices that define inquiry in science (Table 1.3).

Table 1.3. Eight scientific practices from A New Framework for K-12 Science Education

(NRC, 2012).

The standards clearly articulate these eight practices in hopes of better specifying

what is meant by inquiry in science and the range of cognitive, social, and physical

practices that it requires (p. 2-5). For each practice, the standards explain what students

should be able to do in regards to each by the end of the 12th

grade and briefly discuss

how students competence might progress across the different grade levels. We think of

1 Asking questions and defining problems

2 Developing and using models

3 Planning and carrying out investigations

4 Analyzing and interpreting data

5 Using mathematics, information and computer technology, and computational thinking

6 Constructing explanations and designing solutions

7 Engaging in argument from evidence

8 Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information

Practice

12

the practices in the Framework not as a revolution, but rather as an evolution in the way

of looking at inquiry, as the Framework builds on former standards documents.

1.3. Why Should Inquiry-Based Instruction be Used in the Classroom?

In general, research supports inquiry as a pedagogical approach that produces

positive results (e.g. Haury, 1993; Shymansky et al., 1983; Wise and Okey, 1983;

Weinstein et al., 1982; Bredderman, 1983). Inquiry-based teaching methods draw upon

constructivist views of learning (Driver et al., 1994). Constructivism, founded on the

ideas of Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky (Fosnot & Perry, 2005) is a theory of learning and

development which suggests that humans actively build, or construct, new knowledge

based on the foundation of previous experiences. Inquiry-based teaching and the

constructivist learning theory promote many of the same objectives such as emphasizing

student construction of concepts by engaging in experiences (Abd-El-Khalick et al.

2004). Instead of memorizing facts directly from the teacher, inquiry-based methods

focus on this active student knowledge construction through experiences with scientific

questions, data collection, data analysis, and constructing explanations.

Inquiry-based instruction is thought to be a powerful vehicle to learn science

because it models how science is practiced and encourages students to develop their own

understandings. Research on student learning has found that in order for students to use

knowledge they have learned, they must understand the major scientific concepts and

develop abilities to apply this knowledge (Bransford et al., 1999). Students have prior

conceptions about natural phenomena and they formulate new knowledge by discovering

alternatives that appear to be more useful in essence, students reorganize the structure

of their thought processes (Driver et al., 1994). Authentic inquiry activities provide

13

students with the motivation to learn new concepts and to incorporate this new

understanding into their existing knowledge. Scientific inquiry matches research on

student learning:

inquiry focuses on a scientifically-oriented question, problem, or

phenomenon, beginning with what the learner knows and actively

engaging him or her in the search for answers and explanations. This

search involves gathering and analyzing information; making inferences

and predictions; and actively creating, modifying, and discarding some

explanations. As students work together to discuss the evidence, compare

results, and with teacher guidance, connect their results with scientific

knowledge, their understanding broadens (NRC, 2000, p. 120).

As examples, researchers have found that inquiry-based approaches increase

motivation (Patrick et al., 2009; Heywood & Heywood, 1992), enhance laboratory skills

and graphing and interpreting data (Mattheis & Nakayama, 1988), vocabulary knowledge

and conceptual understandings (Lloyd & Contheras, 1985), critical thinking (Narode et

al., 1987), science content understanding (Geier et al., 2008; Lynch et al., 2005), and

positive attitudes towards science (Rakow, 1986). Supporting this small sample of

examples, meta-analyses of research on inquiry-based teaching also report significant

improvements in student achievement, attitude, and process skills (Minner et al., 2010;

Shymansky et al, 1983; Shymansky et al., 1990). Recently, Granger et al. (2012)

conducted a large-scale, randomized-cluster experimental design comparing the effects of

student-centered and teacher-centered instruction on 4th

and 5th

graders understanding of

14

space-science concepts and found that learning outcomes were significantly higher for

students in the student-centered classrooms.

Inquiry-based teaching has also been shown to engage and motivate more

students than traditional methods, especially students from under-represented populations

in science. For example, significantly higher learning using inquiry-oriented approaches

has been documented in students with learning disabilities (Scruggs & Mastropieri,

1993), deaf students (Chiara, 1990) and language minority students (Roseberry et al.,

1990). In addition, in a study researching 3rd

and 4th

grade students abilities to complete

some inquiry tasks such as controlling variables and using measurement data and tools to

support their theories, Lee et al. (2006) found that inquiry-based teaching methods

especially enhanced these skills for older students and for students from less privileged

backgrounds.

1.4. Challenges to Inquiry-Based Instruction

Even though the research literature generally agrees that inquiry-based teaching

produces positive results, many teachers report significant challenges to teaching using

these methods. Lee and Houseal (2003) break down these challenges into external and

internal factors. Examples of external factors include lack of time (Newman et al., 2004),

lack of resources (Abell & McDonald, 2004), lack of school or community support (Lee

& Houseal, 2003), parental resistance (Anderson, 2002), student weaknesses in

systematically collecting, analyzing, and drawing conclusions from data (Kraijcik et al.,

1998), and classroom management issues (Roehrig & Luft, 2004).

15

An example of an internal factor is lack of teachers content and/or pedagogical

knowledge. Lack of science content knowledge can make it difficult for teachers to lead

inquiry-based lessons (Lederman & Neiss, 2000), and even if they have the necessary

content knowledge, lack of pedagogical knowledge can also cause a challenge (Shulman,

1986). Lack of content knowledge is especially a problem at the elementary level, where

many teachers have little formal science training (Kennedy, 1998). As discussed in the

previous section, because there are a variety of meanings among the science education

community associated with the term inquiry, teachers may have trouble figuring out how

to teach using inquiry-based methods. Also, teachers may have few operational models

of inquiry on which to draw, making them unsure of teacher and student roles (Crawford,

2000). A second example of an internal factor is teachers incompatible pedagogical

beliefs. Incompatible pedagogical beliefs about learning and teaching practices, such as

the preparation ethic, the feeling that teachers must provide enough coverage to prepare

students for the next level of schooling (Anderson, 2002), can also impact how teachers

use inquiry-based instruction (Roehrig & Luft, 2004).

Although many studies have identified the challenges listed above, there is

disagreement on which are the largest challenges. For example, Edelson et al., (1999)

identified five significant challenges to implementing inquiry learning as student

motivation, accessibility of investigation techniques (if students can perform the tasks the

investigation requires), student science content background knowledge, and the ability for

students to organize and manage complex, extended activities. In a more recent article,

Quigley et al., (2011) identified the four major challenges facing teachers as: measuring

the quality of inquiry, using discourse to improve inquiry (students cannot become

16

engaged if they are not able to talk science), pursuing the goal of teaching content

through inquiry methods, and learning how to effectively manage an inquiry classroom.

Even though this list of challenges may seem daunting, many of the above studies also

discussed ways teachers could minimize these challenges in their classrooms.

1.5. Teachers Understanding of Inquiry

In science, scientists often generate their own research questions, investigate

many possible variables, invent complex procedures, consider whether their results can

be applied to other situations, and manage results from multiple studies (Chinn &

Malhotra, 2002). When asked to describe the most important aspects of scientific

investigations, a sample of 32 science faculty members valued the role of scientific

literature, scientific questions, pattern finding, and puzzle solving (Harwood et al., 2002).

Classroom inquiry involves different cognitive processes and core attributes than inquiry

carried out by scientists, and as a result, inquiry tasks in the classroom are different than

tasks and processes employed by scientists (Wong & Hodson, 2008; Chinn & Malhotra,

2002). Thus, in conceptualizing classroom inquiry, we draw on the constructs of

classroom inquiry described above, including the essential features (NRC, 1996) or

scientific practices (NRC, 2012).

Research on teachers has found that their understanding of classroom inquiry is

often incomplete. For example, Demir and Abell (2010) investigated the meaning of

inquiry held by beginning teachers and found their views did not match those described

in the 2000 NRC document, Inquiry in the National Science Education Standards.

Teachers often left out evidence, explanation, justification, and communication in their

answers, with one teacher thinking student choice determined what made an activity

17

inquiry-based, and another thinking inquiry-based activities were unstructured and

student-driven. In a recent study examining the teaching practices and views of inquiry

of 26 well-qualified 5th

-9th

grade teachers from across the country, Capps and Crawford

(2012) found that few teachers from a group of highly motivated and well-qualified

teachers could describe what inquiry-based instruction really was. Most equated inquiry

with hands-on learning. Brown et al. (2006) reported that college professors had an

incomplete view of classroom inquiry they stressed the role of questioning and

collecting data, but often did not mention other features such as explanation and

justification. Further, they tended to have an all-or-nothing view, thinking inquiry was

completely student-driven, and also thought it was unstructured and time-consuming, and

hence more appropriate for upper-level science majors than for introductory students or

non-majors.

1.6. Teachers Use of Inquiry

There are few research studies that specifically address how often teachers use

inquiry-based methods in their classrooms, though the few studies published consistently

indicate that it is not happening very often. One of the earliest studies on the topic

reported that inquiry-based teaching was not widespread even in teachers using

curriculum materials developed specifically to foster inquiry teaching (Stake and Easley,

1978). In another older study, Welch et al., (1981) found that teachers were not using

inquiry as it was described in reform documents. In terms of content focus on inquiry,

Weiss (2003) found that 15% of lessons in elementary schools focused on science

inquiry, while only 2% of lessons in grades 9-12 did.

18

In addition to finding that few well-qualified 5th

-9th

grade teachers could describe

what inquiry really was, Capps and Crawford (2012) also found that few teachers

demonstrated an ability to teach science as inquiry. They reported that most inquiry was

teacher-initiated, and the most common aspects of inquiry were basic abilities such as

using tools and mathematics in science class. When asked in an interview if they thought

they were teaching science as inquiry, most teachers believed they were. Marshall et al.,

(2007) administered a 58-item survey to 1,222 K-12 mathematics and science teachers in

a large district to measure their beliefs about and use of inquiry in the classroom. Higher

than previous studies, they found elementary school teachers reported using inquiry-

based practices 39% of the time, and middle and high school teachers reported using

inquiry-based practices between 32 and 34% of the time. Most teachers in the study

believed that they should be using inquiry more than they actually reported.

In another recent article, Asay and Orgill (2010) analyzed articles published in

The Science Teacher from 1988-2007 for explicit evidence of features of inquiry using

the five essential features of inquiry described in Inquiry and the National Science

Education Standards (NRC, 2000). They found that few articles described full inquiry,

and gathering and analyzing evidence were much more prominent in the articles than

were other features of inquiry. During the 10 year period, 82% of the articles involved

data or evidence gathered by students or provided by the teacher, and in 64% of the

articles this data was analyzed, but the other features of inquiry (questioning, explaining,

and communicating) were each present in less than 25% of the articles.

19

1.7. Factors that Influence Teachers Understanding and Use of Inquiry

Previous studies have identified multiple factors that influence teachers abilities

to implement inquiry-based instruction as well as how often they teach using inquiry-

based methods. Lotter et al. (2007) found four core conceptions that guided teachers use

of inquiry-based practices: their conceptions of science (e.g. if they viewed science as a

set body of knowledge or placed more emphasis on science process skills), students (e.g.

if they viewed their students as passive learners or more as problem solvers), the purpose

of education (how they thought education should prepare students for life e.g. through

learning content knowledge, instilling a good work ethic or teaching students how to

think), and effective teaching practices. In their study on the views and practices of

teachers, Capps and Crawford (2012) found no single factor that accounted for teachers

who were able to teach science through inquiry (such as scientific research experience),

but they did note that all the teachers who demonstrated an ability to teach science as

inquiry had abundant experience teaching and learning science. Marshall et al. (2009)

identified four variables that related to the amount of time teachers engaged students in

inquiry: grade level taught, content area taught, level of support received, and self-

efficacy for teaching inquiry. They did not find that gender, prior education, or work

experiences were correlated with inquiry-based instruction.

1.8. Significance of Study

The current study was conducted to gain a better understanding of motivated

elementary, middle, and high school science teachers understanding and reported use of

inquiry-based science instruction. To do this, we surveyed and interviewed science

20

teachers from across the country at the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA)

Conference in Indianapolis, IN from March 29th

to April 1st, 2012.

Although other researchers have surveyed science teachers understanding of

inquiry before, most of these studies were conducted in a single school district or

measured the impact of an intervention on teachers understanding of inquiry. Little is

known, however, about teachers understanding of inquiry nationwide. To fill this gap in

the literature, this study surveys teachers from a large geographic distribution and with a

wide variety of backgrounds. In addition to surveying teachers from across the country,

this study also differs from previous studies in its definition of inquiry. While many

researchers have defined inquiry and conducted studies using the NRCs five essential

features of classroom inquiry (e.g. Anderson, 2002; Capps & Crawford, 2012; Crawford,

2000; Luft, 1999), the current study incorporates the new NRC science frameworks

(2012), specifically defining inquiry by the eight scientific practices (Table 2.2). Finally,

teachers attending the NSTA Annual Conference are typically well-prepared and highly-

motivated science teachers, thus, surveying this population gives us a best-case scenario

if teachers are using inquiry in their classrooms.

Keys and Bryan (2001) called for research on teachers beliefs, knowledge, and

practices of using inquiry-based instruction. The data from this study helps to answer

this call and can be used to inform the science education community, teachers, and

teacher educators about how and how often inquiry is being implemented in classrooms

across the country and how these practices are influenced by teacher knowledge and

other background factors. Research on teachers understanding about inquiry can reflect

what may be realistically accomplished by reforms on a large scale and can help inform

21

the reform process. In addition, results from this research can help better support

teachers in understanding and enacting reform-based teaching approaches and can help

guide the development of appropriate teacher education and professional development

programs.

22

CHAPTER 2

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

2.1. Survey Instrument

We developed a written survey containing four sections: 1) teachers

understanding of inquiry, 2) origin of knowledge regarding inquiry, 3) perceived

challenges of enacting inquiry, and 4) reported use of scientific practices. Below are

descriptions of each of these sections. See Appendix A for the complete survey.

To learn about teachers understanding of inquiry, we asked teachers to respond

to the following open-ended question: If you had to tell a group of parents, at an open-

house night, what are the most important aspects of inquiry-based science teaching, what

would you tell them? We assessed the origin of teachers knowledge of inquiry by

asking them where they learned about inquiry. Included in the choices were school-based

workshops, outside workshops, reading articles about inquiry, college classes, and/or

peers, and by asking them to rate the extent to which they have read four pertinent

national and state documents about inquiry. Teachers rated how much of the document

they had read using a 5-point Likert scale from 1, Ive not read it, to 5, Ive read all of it.

To learn about challenges of enacting inquiry, we selected items based on a literature

review (see Table 2.1) and asked teachers to rate how much they perceived each

statement to be a challenge to enacting inquiry-based science teaching in their classroom.

Again, we used a Likert scale, from 1, not a challenge, to 5, major challenge.

23

Table 2.1. Possible challenges of enacting inquiry included in the survey.

Possible Challenge

a Lack of student motivation

b Students are too young

c Students lack the ability

d My insufficient content knowledge

e My insufficient pedagogical knowledge

f Classroom management issues

g Not enough time

h It takes too much preparation time

i Class size is too large

j Assessing students

k Finding inquiry-based lessons

l Availability of materials

To learn about reported use of scientific practices in the classroom, the survey

included 21 statements from A Framework for K-12 Science Education (NRC, 2012).

We chose three statements related to each practice (practice #5, related to mathematics,

was not included). Teachers were asked to rate how often they had students do each

using a 7-point Likert scale from 1, never, to 7, during every class (Table 2.2).

Statements were taken directly from the Framework. However, due to time constraints,

only three statements from each practice were chosen (out of 5-6). Several of these

statements were shortened while still retaining the essence of the original statement.

24

Table 2.2. Statements about scientific practices included in the survey.

1. Ask questions about the natural and human-built worlds

2. Formulate and/or refine questions that can be answered empirically in a science classroom

3. Ask questions about features, patterns, or contradictions noted in data sets

1. Construct drawings or diagrams as representations of events or systems (e.g. to represent

what happens in the water in a puddle as it is warmed by the sun)

2. Represent and explain phenomena with multiple types of models (e.g. represent molecules with

bond diagrams or 3-D models)

3. Discuss the limitations and precision of a model

1. Decide what data are to be gathered, what tools are needed to do the gathering, and how

measurements will be recoreded

2. Decide how much data are needed to produce reliable measurements and consider any

limitations on the precision of the data

3. Plan experimental or field-research procedures, identifying relevant independent and

dependent variables, and when appropriate, the need for controls

1. Analyze data systematically, either to look for patterns or to test whether the data are

consistent with an initial hypothesis

2. Use spreadsheets, databases, tables, charts, graphs, and statistics to collate, summarize, and

display data and to explore relationships between variables

3. Evaluate the strength of a conclusion that can be inferred from any data set, using appropriate

grade-level mathematics and statistical techniques

1. Construct their own explanations of phenomena using their knowledge of accepted scientific

theory and linking it to models and evidence

2. Use scientific evidence and models to support or refute an explanatory account of a

phenomenon

3. Identify gaps or weaknesses in explanatory accounts

1. Construct a scientific argument showing how the data support the claim

2. Identify possible weaknesses in scientific arguments, appropriate to the students' level of

knowledge, and discuss them using reasoning and evidence

3. Recognize the major features of scientific arguments are claims, data and reasons, and

distinguish these elements in examples

1. Use words, tables, diagrams, and graphs to communicate their understanding or to ask

questions about a system under study

2. Read grade level appropriate scientific text with tables, diagrams, and graphs and explain the

ideas being communicated

3. Produce written and illustrated text or oral presentations that communicate their own ideas and

accomplishments

Practice 7. Engaging in argument from evidence

Practice 8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information

Practice 1. Asking questions and defining problems

Practice 2. Developing and using models

Practice 3. Planning and carrying out investigations

Practice 4. Analyzing and interpreting data

Practice 6. Constructing explanations and designing solutions

25

In addition to these four sections, the survey contained questions related to

demographics, education, work experience, etc. to determine if there were particular

factors that might help explain teachers understanding and reported use of inquiry (Table

2.3).

Table 2.3. Teacher background factors included in the survey.

Several of the Likert-scale items from the self-confidence and school characteristics

categories (questions 11 a, b, c, f, and h; see Appendix A) came from a survey developed

Items

Gender

Primary grades taught (elementary, middle, high)

Type of school (Public, private)

% of students receiving free or reduced lunch

Undergraduate/graduate school(s) attended

Major(s)

Year(s) graduated

If they wrote a thesis

Years of teaching experience

# of years of work experience related to science (industry, government, other

lab or field experience not related to a university degree

Participation in a Research Experience for Teachers (RET)

Approximate # of professional workshops or conferences they have attended in

the last 5 years (science focused, science teaching methods focused)

Freedom in designing their curriculum

Their curriculum's support for inquiry-based instruction

Type of curriculum (teacher developed, commercial, or no specific curriculum)

Their confidence in using inquiry

Their knowledge of their discipline's content standards

Importance of test preparation in their school

School administration's support for inquiry-based instruction

School

characteristics:

Demographics:

Category

Education:

Experience:

Curriculum:

Self-confidence:

26

by Marshall et al. (2009) to gather information about K-12 science and math teachers

beliefs about and use of inquiry in the classroom.

2.2. Study Participants

The study used a mixed-methods approach combining quantitative and qualitative

data (Creswell, 2009). We collected both survey and interview data from the

participants, K-12 teachers attending the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA)

Conference in Indianapolis, IN in 2012. The NSTA conference provides an avenue for

science educators to connect with one another and share their experiences as well as learn

new science content and teaching strategies. We chose participants attending this

conference for two reasons: (1) the national conference for NSTA attracts teachers of all

ages and many ethnic groups from across the country, providing a diverse sample

population, and (2) teachers attending this conference are typically highly-motivated as

they must have the desire attend and expand their professional growth. We received

approval for the study from the University of Maines Institutional Review Board prior to

the piloting process (described below) and travelling to the conference.

To recruit participants, we secured space in the exhibition hall in a booth run by

IRIS (Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology), an education and public

outreach organization that aims to advance awareness and understanding of seismology

and earth science. We asked teachers who approached the IRIS both or who walked in

the aisle in front of the booth to participate in the study with a statement such as:

Hi, are you a science teacher? Im a graduate student at the University of

Maine, and Im wondering if you would be willing to participate in a

27

research study I am conducting as part of my Masters thesis? The study

is on science teachers perceptions and practices of inquiry-based science

teaching. If you choose to participate, you will be given a written survey

that will take approximately 10 minutes to complete

As a further incentive to participate in the study, teachers had the chance to win one of

four, $25 Amazon.com gift cards. To be eligible for the drawing which occurred at the

end of the conference teachers had to hand in their completed survey and enter their

email address on a separate piece of paper. Teachers who agreed to complete the survey

were directed to complete the survey at a nearby table and return it to the IRIS booth.

We recruited interview participants by looking to see if respondents checked a box on the

back of their completed survey asking if they would be willing to participate in a five-

minute interview about the topics raised in the survey. Interviews were conducted on-

the-spot and were recorded after asking the teachers permission. In total, 152 teachers

completed the survey and 11 completed interviews. Surveys completed by student

teachers and college-level teachers were excluded from the analysis, bringing the final

number of analyzed surveys to 149.

2.3. Survey Piloting

The survey was piloted with 21, K-12 teachers. The piloting teachers were each

asked to take the survey and provide written comments and feedback on the questions.

Additionally, we conducted interviews with seven of these teachers to obtain more detail

about their interpretation of the questions. Goals for the piloting process included: (1)

ensuring face validity, making sure teachers understood and interpreted the questions

28

correctly, (2) ensuring there was a desired level of variation within each question, and (3)

checking correlations between questions to identify and remove redundant questions.

We recruited eight piloting volunteers from teachers currently participating in the

University of Maine Physical Sciences Partnership, specifically teachers in the 9th

grade

task force, a group of 15 teachers working together to evaluate a set of candidate physical

science curricula. Additionally, we recruited seven teachers from the Fossil Finders

project, a collaboration between Cornell University and the Paleontological Research

Institute in Ithaca, New York that focuses on learning about evolutionary concepts

through an authentic inquiry-based investigation of Devonian-aged fossils. Finally, we

also asked six local teachers to pilot the survey. Because the majority of the 21 piloting

teachers were motivated teachers who regularly took part in long-term professional

development programs and attended science teacher conferences, we felt they were a

good analog for our target population of teachers at the NSTA conference. Table 2.4

describes the changes made to the survey after the piloting process.

29

Table 2.4. Changes made to the survey after the piloting process.

2.4. Survey Data Analysis

Statistical analysis of data was performed using SPSS version 20.0 (SPSS, Inc.,

Chicago, IL, USA). All statistical values were considered significant at the p level of

0.05.

Changes

Changed open-ended question prompt from "parent" to a "group of parents" and

included a larger box in which teachers could write their answers to give them a

better idea of how long of an answer was desired

Took out a series of 5 questions on common mythos about inquiry (taken from

the INSES) for space purposes and because some teachers had trouble with them

Added in the challenge: "finding inquiry-based lessons"

Took out the section on benefits of inquiry-based instruction for space purposes

and because there was not much varibility in responses

Added in the phrase "on average thoughout the year" to be more explicit about

this question because teachers reported having trouble thinking of average

answers based on the subject, class, week, etc.

Changed the upper category on the Likert scale of this question from 'daily' to

'during every class period' because some teachers had trouble with the original

scale if their class only met 2-3 times a week

Added in examples of science and science teaching methods workshops as

some teachers had trouble differentiating between the two. Also lowered the

range on this question from 10 years to 5 years as many teachers found it difficult

to remember how many events they have been to in the past 10 years

Added in the phrase "not including summer experiences" in the prior work

experience question

Re-worked the educational background section for formatting to make it easier

to fill out

Got rid of the question "the faculty at my school is supportive of inquiry-based

science instruction" as the responses were very similar to the question "my school's

administration is supportive of inquiry-based science instruction"

Survey section

Understanding

of inquiry

Challenges:

Reported

enactment of

inquiry:

Background

information:

30

2.4.1. Range of Understanding

To report on the range of science teachers understanding of inquiry, we coded the

open-ended survey question about teachers understanding of inquiry (question 13) by

looking for evidence of the eight scientific practices described in the Framework (NRC,

2012). Teachers were given an overall understanding of inquiry score based on the

following criteria: 0 if the response did not include any scientific practices, 1 if the

response included one practice, 2 if the response included two practices, and 3 if the

response included three or more practices. Descriptions of coding for the scientific

practices follow (the entire code book, including examples, can be found in Appendix B):

1. Asking questions and defining problems The teacher indicated that they have their

students ask questions about the natural or human built worlds, distinguish scientific

from nonscientific questions, or ask questions about features or patterns in

observations they make.

2. Developing and using models The teacher indicated that they have their students

construct or use models as representations of events or systems, or they have their

students discuss the limitations and precision of a model.

3. Planning and carrying out investigations The teacher indicated that they have their

students plan investigations, such as by deciding what data are to be gathered, what

tools are necessary to do the gathering, or identifying necessary controls, and/or carry

out investigations.

31

4. Analyzing and interpreting data The teacher indicated that they have their students

analyze/interpret data such as looking for patterns, making tables, charts, or graphs,

and/or recognizing when data are in conflict with expectations.

5. Using math and technology1 The teacher indicated that they have their students use

mathematics and/or computer technology in analyzing data.

6. Constructing explanations The teacher indicated that they have their students

construct explanations of phenomena using their knowledge of accepted scientific

theory. To count, the answer had to specifically state that students constructed an

explanation of their observations or a phenomenon, not simply answered a question.

7. Engaging in argument from evidence The teacher indicated that they have their

students construct scientific arguments showing how the data support the claim

and/or identify and discuss weaknesses in scientific arguments using reasoning and

evidence.

8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information The teacher indicated that

they have their students communicate their ideas and accomplishments about a

system under study by producing oral presentations or written words, graphs, tables,

or diagrams, and/or reading scientific text and explaining the ideas being

communicated. To count, the answer had to include or imply that the students are

1 Statements from this practice were not included in the survey, but it was looked for when coding this

question.

32

communicating information in written or spoken form, not just simply speaking or

conversing in general.

In addition to scoring teachers responses to question 13 between 0 and 3, we also

noted common themes used to describe inquiry-based teaching as we read through

teachers responses. We evaluated the noted themes for overlap, and after combing some

together, ended up with 12 distinct categories. Teachers answers to this question were

also coded for these 12 themes, described below:

A. Exploring/ discovering The teacher indicated that inquiry-based science teaching

involves students exploring or discovering science topics, concepts, or ideas.

Alternatively, they indicated that inquiry-based science teaching avoids excessively

detailed, cookbook like procedures, instead being more of an open-ended approach

where students guide their own learning.

B. Constructing knowledge The teacher indicated that inquiry-based science teaching

allows students to construct their own knowledge about science processes and/or

content, for example by students facing or confronting misconceptions. Answers in

which constructing knowledge was not explicit such as figuring out answers or

drawing conclusions were not counted.

C. Hands-on The teacher indicated that inquiry-based science teaching is a hands-on

approach or involves hands-on activities.

33

D. Student-centered The teacher indicated that in inquiry-based science teaching,

students are not told what to do or think by the teacher, and instead ask their own

questions and/or design and carry out their own investigations.

E. Preparation for future school/work/life The teacher indicated that inquiry-based

science teaching is helpful for teaching students skills that will help prepare them to

succeed in work, life, or school after their K-12 education.

F. Relevancy The teacher indicated that inquiry-based science teaching makes learning

science content and processes relevant for students by connecting their learning to

real world problems.

G. Teamwork The teacher indicated that in inquiry-based science teaching, students

often work in groups, and/or it helps students develop the ability to problem solve as

a group.

H. Engagement in science The teacher indicated that inquiry-based science teaching

helps to promote the active engagement of students in activities, labs, problem

solving, etc, and/or increases student interest and motivation to learn about science.

I. Deeper understanding of science content knowledge The teacher indicated that

inquiry-based science teaching reinforces science standards, helps students better

34

understand science content, and/or helps students remember information and/or

concepts longer than with other methods of teaching.

J. Critical thinking/ problem solving skills The teacher indicated that inquiry-based

science teaching allows students to access and practice higher-level thinking skills

such as critical thinking and problem solving and/or the fact that inquiry-based

science teaching does not involve memorization of facts.

K. Models what real scientists do The teacher indicated that inquiry-based science

teaching allows students to more closely model the work of real scientists, allowing

them to experience the sciences the way that scientists to, and allowing them to learn

to think like a scientist.

L. Okay to get the wrong answers The teacher indicated that in inquiry-based science

teaching, it is okay for students not to know the answers and to be wrong or to learn

by trial and error; it is okay if the conclusion is different from the initial prediction

because the main goal is more the thinking process than getting the correct answer.

We also compared teachers who received a score of 0 for the understanding of

inquiry variable (n = 88) to teachers who received a score of 2 or 3 (n = 34) to determine

if there were differences in where they learned about inquiry. Specifically, we used a chi

square test between these two groups of teachers and the five options in the question

(school workshop, college classes, outside workshop, peers, and reading articles).

35

Additionally, we compared the total number of places in which the two groups learned

about inquiry using an independent samples t-test. To further determine if there were

differences in the number of places in which teachers with different understanding of

inquiry scores learned about inquiry, we also compared teachers who received 0s on

this scale to only the teachers who received 3s (n = 13). Finally, to determine where

teachers views about inquiry originated, we compiled frequency data from the

appropriate questions.

2.4.2. Perceived Challenges

To learn about teachers perceived challenges of using inquiry-based instruction,

we compiled frequency data from this question.

2.4.3. Reported Use of Practices

To establish how often teachers reported enacting scientific practices in their

classroom, we created a single variable (reported use of scientific practices) based on

responses to the 21 scientific practice questions. To compute this variable, we used both a

reliability analysis and a principal components analysis (PCA). First, we conducted a

reliability analysis to see if the triplicate statements for each practice could be averaged

together into a single value. Cronbachs alphas were greater than .70 for each triplicate,

and so seven summary values were created based on the mean value for each. The PCA

of the seven values resulted in five factors with eigenvalues greater than one (more

details of the groups will be provided in the results), and so we computed the summary

variable as equal to the mean of the five scales. Pearson correlations between the 5

groups were significant at the 0.01 level, providing justification for the single variable.

36

To decide if there were differences in how often teachers reported using the five

practices, we completed a repeated measures ANOVA between the means of each. To see

if there was a relationship between teachers understanding of inquiry and their reported

use of scientific practices, we performed a linear regression between these two variables.

2.4.4. Relationship with Background Factors

To determine if teachers understanding and/or reported use of inquiry differed

based on background factors, we conducted linear regressions between these variables

and the surveyed demographic factors (Table 2.3). The resulting factors with statistically

significant correlations to teachers reported use of inquiry were then broken into two

categories teachers background characteristics and school characteristics. We

conducted a multiple regression analysis with each to evaluate how well these

characteristics predicted teachers reported use of scientific practices in the classroom.

For the teachers background characteristics category, the predictors were the average

amount they had read the three national documents, their science lab or field experience,

if they had learned about inquiry-based teaching methods in school workshops, and if

they had learned about inquiry-based teaching methods by reading articles. For the

school characteristics category, the predictors were the importance of high stakes test

preparation in the teachers school, if the teacher has a lot of freedom in designing their

curriculum, and if the curriculum they use supports inquiry-based instruction. We also

conducted a multiple regression analysis with all seven measures as predictors to

determine if school characteristics offered additional predictive power beyond that

contributed by knowledge of teachers background.

37

In addition to the above analyses, we chose to investigate teachers curriculum

type (commercial, teacher developed, or no specific curriculum) more closely. First, we

conducted a one-way ANOVA to determine if there was a relationship between

curriculum type and teachers understanding or reported use of inquiry. Second, we used

independent sample t-tests to compare the understanding and reported use of inquiry

between teachers who used commercial curricula and those who either developed their

own or who had no specific curriculum. We also used t-tests between these two groups

to investigate whether teachers with certain characteristics (e.g. total years taught, work

experience, etc.) tended to develop their own curriculum.

Lastly, we profiled teachers with the highest understanding and reported use of

inquiry to see where they stood in regards to various background factors and compared

them to the teachers with the lowest understanding and reported use of inquiry. To do

this, we coded the group of teachers with a higher understanding / higher reported use of

inquiry as those who both scored a 2 or 3 on the open-ended question (question #7) as

well as scored above the 75th

percentile on their reported use of inquiry (question #13).

We coded the teachers with a lower understanding / lower reported use of inquiry as

those who scored a 0 on question #7 and below the 25th

percentile on question #13.

Based on these criteria, we identified 9 teachers with a higher understanding/ higher

reported use of inquiry and 18 teachers with a lower understanding/ lower reported use of

inquiry. After identifying the two groups, we then used independent sample t-tests to

compare their background characteristics.

38

2.5. Inter-rater Reliability

We performed an inter-rater reliability to verify our coding of the scientific

practices in the open-ended question about teachers understanding of inquiry. The

coders were the author and another graduate student in the Master of Science in Teaching

program. The second coder volunteered for this task and was familiar with the

Framework, but was not involved in research concerning scientific practices or other

themes in the Framework. For training, we asked the coder to read the scientific

practices section in the Framework as well as the code book with the descriptions and

examples of each scientific practice (Appendix B). They then coded all 149 teacher

responses for the eight scientific practices. We calculated Inter-rater reliability as the

percent agreement between the author and coder for each scientific practice.

After this first iteration, percent agreement for each practice was above 90%

except for practice 6, which was 77%. In a discussion with the second coder after

finishing, he explained he had trouble with practice 6 because he thought that simply by

answering a question, students must also be constructing an explanation. Looking

through the surveys he coded as practice 6, it was apparent that he coded many answers

with the phrases finding answers, answering questions, or solving problems. To

clarify this practice, we added the following sentence to the code book: to count, the

answer had to specifically state that students constructed an explanation of their

observations or a phenomenon, not simply answered a question.

Approximately two months after the first iteration, we asked the same coder to re-

code all 149 responses, but this time coding only for practice 6. Before beginning, we

discussed practice 6 with the coder again, and had him read the revised version of the

39

practice in the code book. After this second iteration, inter-rater reliability was 99% for

this practice (Table 2.5).

Table 2.5. Inter-rater reliability results.

2.6. Interviews

We conducted short interviews, approximately five-minutes long, to: (1)

corroborate teachers understanding of inquiry and (2) determine if they correctly

interpreted the meaning of individual statements in question 13, which asked how often

teachers had their students do various statements from the Framework. During the

interview, we first asked teachers to describe an inquiry-based science lesson they

recently taught and thought went well in their classroom (this prompt was based on a

similar prompt used by Ireland et al., 2011). Next, after scanning through their responses

on question 13, we chose 1 or 2 statements that the teacher had rated highly (meaning

they reported they had their students do it fairly often). We then read teachers the

statement and asked them to describe what that practice might look like in their

classroom.

Scientific

Practice

%

Agreement

1 92%

2 100%

3 90%

4 97%

5 100%

6 99%

7 96%

8 98%

40

All interviews were transcribed in full. To d