Enhancing the Student Experiment Experience: VisibleScientific Inquiry Through a Virtual ChemistryLaboratory

Dermot Donnelly & John O’Reilly & Oliver McGarr

Published online: 7 October 2012# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Abstract Practical work is often noted as a core reason many students take on science insecondary schools (high schools). However, there are inherent difficulties associated withclassroom practical work that militate against scientific inquiry, an approach espoused bymany science educators. The use of interactive simulations to facilitate student inquiry hasemerged as a complement to practical work. This study presents case studies of four scienceteachers using a virtual chemistry laboratory (VCL) with their students in an explicitlyguided inquiry manner. Research tools included the use of the Inquiry Science Implemen-tation Scale in a ‘talk-aloud’ manner, Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol for videoobservations, and teacher interviews. The findings suggest key aspects of practical work thathinder teachers in adequately supporting inquiry and highlight where a VCL can overcomemany of these difficulties. The findings also indicate considerations in using the VCL in itsown right.

Keywords Scientific inquiry . Virtual laboratories . Practical work . Simulation

Introduction

High-quality practical work is often acknowledged to engage students in science anddevelop their relevant knowledge, skills, and conceptual understanding, but it is alsoacknowledged that ensuring such high-quality practical work is a complex process(Abrahams 2009; Hofstein and Lunetta 2004; SCORE Report 2010). Many researchstudies have centred on answering to the exact role, effectiveness, and possibleimprovements of practical work as a teaching, learning, and assessment tool over thepast three decades (Abrahams and Saglam 2010; Adlong et al. 2003; Garnett et al.1995; Solomon et al. 1996; Tobin and Gallagher 1987).

A common approach espoused to practical work is inquiry as much contemporarypractical work is devoid of discernible student thought, lacks student ownership, and only

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1571–1592DOI 10.1007/s11165-012-9322-1

D. Donnelly (*) : J. O’Reilly : O. McGarrUniversity of Limerick, Limerick, Irelande-mail: dermotdonnelly@gmail.com

focuses on the observable aspects of a phenomenon (Abrahams and Millar 2008). Inquiryhas been defined by the U.S. National Research Council (1996, p. 23) in their NationalScience Education Standards as ‘multifaceted’ and involves:

making observations; posing questions; examining books and other sources of infor-mation to see what is already known; planning investigations; reviewing what isalready known in light of experimental evidence; using tools to gather, analyze, andinterpret data; proposing answers, explanations, and predictions; and communicatingthe results. Inquiry requires identification of assumptions, use of critical and logicalthinking, and consideration of alternative explanations.

Hofstein et al. (2004) argue the utility of inquiry-based practical work in that they foundthat Israeli secondary school students in this type of setting asked better questions, had betterplanning in considering the variables of an experiment, and made suggestions about morevalid and reliable equipment to carry out the experiments. Students themselves reported thatthe inquiry approach was more interesting, challenging, and enjoyable. These commentsrelate to growing research that argues the utility of teaching through inquiry to developcritical student thinking (minds-on) and not just the physical part of learning (hands-on;Abrahams and Millar 2008; Herrenkohl et al. 2011; Hmelo-Silver et al. 2007). Research alsoexists to argue against the proposed advantages of teaching through inquiry in that studentscan become frustrated in inquiry settings and may not gain greater conceptual understandingfrom inquiry compared to direct instruction (Cobern et al. 2010; Kirschner et al. 2006).However, these studies can be argued to not appreciate the inherent role of scaffolding(Vygotsky 1978) within inquiry-based approaches (Hmelo-Silver et al. 2007).

The role of scaffolding is important to consider, especially with the ever-increasingnumber of technology affordances (Webb 2005) available to teachers that can potentiallysupport more authentic inquiry practices. Many technology affordances focus on moreopen-ended aspects of inquiry such as argumentation, control of variables, analysis offindings, etc., yet there are still cultural questions of how adequately prepared studentsand teachers are, within their zone of proximal development (Vygotsky 1978), to movetowards such practices. These questions are particularly pertinent to the Irish context,where there is a time constraint due to a congested syllabus, and such approaches canbe viewed as implausible in light of assessment (Donnelly et al. 2011a). Foundationsneed to be built before more open forms of inquiry are practical. This study focuses onthe use of a virtual chemistry laboratory (VCL) simulation to support students’ andteachers’ practice towards inquiry, but encompasses problems related to the Irishcurriculum that teachers are familiar with and, thus, are within students’ and teachers’zone of proximal development (ZPD). However, the VCL allows for distinctly differentteacher and student roles that could offer interesting insights to student and teacherorientations to inquiry.

Simulations Supporting Inquiry

In the last 15 years, a great deal of research has been conducted in the area of computersimulations in science education and the possible affordances they offer (Baggott and Nichol1998; Ketelhut and Nelson 2010; Pantelidis 1997; Quellmalz et al. 2012; Zacharia 2007). Ina review of 51 articles (48 empirically based and three reviews) from 2001 to 2010, Rutten etal. (2011) found that traditional science classrooms can be enhanced by computer simula-tions, in that simulations can be useful for visualisation or as a pre-laboratory exercise, and

1572 Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1571–1592

that, in many cases, simulations demonstrated improved learning, with effect sizes reaching1.54. The more specific features of simulations noted were that they enhance students’conceptual understanding, reduce time demands, improve students’ predictions of the resultsof experiments, and can overall have a positive impact on students’ satisfaction andperception of the classroom environment.

Scalise et al. (2011) reviewed 79 studies related to the use of computer simulations forgrades 6–12 in US schools. Thirty-nine of the studies reported learning gains related tosimulations supporting scientific inquiry. Simulations supported students in developingresearch questions, designing experiments, setting up simulation projects, and obtainingand analysing simulation data (Scalise et al. 2011). The sparse areas of research noted werein terms of the interaction between the instructor and student, the costs associated with usingsuch simulations in schools, and the need for teacher professional development. Rutten et al.(2011) also note the lack of research focus on instructional support external to simulationssuch as the teacher, classroom scenario, and the curriculum.

The focus of this study was on how a VCL may support greater teacher enactment ofinquiry-based approaches to practical work. This focus encompassed elements of “both azoomed in perspective—by manipulating variables within a simulation—and a zoomed outperspective—by taking the broader pedagogical context into account” (Rutten et al. 2011, p.150). The zoomed-in perspective will be detailed in “Method”. In particular, this paper isfocused on the zoomed-out perspective of the teacher and how the simulation provided ameans to support their practice towards inquiry. The following research questions wereconsidered:

& What are teachers’ perceptions on their implementation of inquiry-based approaches andtheir reasoning underpinning this?

& Asked to teach a guided inquiry lesson through a specifically designed VCL problem,how does the teachers’ practice reflect inquiry-based approaches? (see Appendix 1 for adefinition of guided inquiry)

& What are the teachers’ responses to using the VCL to support inquiry-based approaches,both positives and possible difficulties with the simulation?

The approach taken to answer these questions will now be detailed, alongside therationale for this approach.

Method

Context of the Study

The Secondary School Science Syllabi in Ireland are currently under review by the NationalCouncil for Curriculum and Assessment (National Council for Curriculum and Assessment2009) in an attempt to increase the number of students choosing to take Physical Sciencesubjects through to upper secondary school level. The NCCAworks on a partnership modelof curriculum change with schools, and since 2002 they have been engaged in consultationon the Senior Cycle (16- to 18-year-olds) curriculum and assessment with teachers, students,and management in schools. The Senior Cycle culminates with final ‘high-stakes’ exami-nations that determine college entry. The consultation process has resulted in five strands foreach science syllabus (Biology, Chemistry, and Physics) with a ‘scientific methods’ strandcommon to all the science syllabi. The second component assessment is being proposed as

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1571–1592 1573

part of the new syllabus with 20 % of the final assessment involving a practical assessment(5 % for a laboratory notebook assessed by teachers and 15 % for practical activitiesassessed externally that can contain material beyond the syllabus). Through the introductionof a second component assessment, the NCCA hope to bring about teacher practice thatsupports increased student inquiry. The NCCA are interested in the potential of the VCL(and other information and communications technology (ICT) resources: data loggers, videoanalysis, other simulations, etc.) used in this study as an infrastructure to support suchpractice through learning activities and as a possible means of assessment. The NCCA arealso interested in other means of assessment such as interviews with students, oral presenta-tions by students, and/or observations of student completion of set practical tasks.

Research Design

The focus of the research questions and certain contextual factors related to secondaryschools dictated the choosing of a case study approach. Firstly, the research questionswere centred on teachers’ use of inquiry-based approaches in secondary schoolsthrough a VCL, but there was an implicit interest on cases involving students whohad a ‘high-stakes’ examination focus. This interest related to the NCCA’s efforts tochange the high-stakes examinations. Due to the examination focus, any researchfocused on an empirical study of learning gains, with or without the VCL, wouldbe deemed unethical by teachers, principals, and parents. Secondly, getting access tosecondary school teachers for research can be a challenge. Teachers are not requiredto become involved in research, and this project could not offer any monetarybenefits. Also, issues of travelling to science teachers in different schools addedfurther consideration to the research design. Hence, a research design based on largesamples was not appropriate and/or feasible. Also, a flexible research design wasneeded due to the demands of daily school life. Teachers’ practice can be frequentlyinterrupted from student absenteeism, school events, teacher training days, schoolholiday closure, etc. Therefore, too many complicating variables emerge for a rigidexperimental design to be utilized in a secondary school-based context.

Based on a consideration of the research questions in light of the above contextual factors, acase study approach was adopted. A case focuses on observing a spatially delimited phenom-enon at a fixed point in time or over an extended period of time (Gerring 2007) and strives toengage with and report the complex settings of social and educational activities in order toportray the meanings that the various social actors involved bring to and construct in suchactivities (Chadderton and Torrance 2011). The case study approach has been tradi-tionally viewed as qualitative in nature, but can combine with different researchtechniques (Guthrie 2010). Importantly, qualitative research is not competitive withquantitative work (Silverman 2006), with both giving potential areas of insight to thecase studies. The focus of the case studies in this research was on chemistry teachersteaching a guided inquiry lesson using a specifically designed titration problem on aninteractive simulation (VCL).

The rationale behind choosing a titration problem is due the predominance of titrations inthe current Irish chemistry syllabus. Out of 28 mandatory experiments on the chemistrysyllabus, nine of them involve titrations. Hence, finding out how an inquiry ‘minds-on’approach to titrations can be supported by a VCL represents a valuable insight in emphasis-ing enhanced student design, critical thinking, and agency. AVCL titration problem wouldpotentially be more effective than a laboratory titration problem in scaffolding teacherapproaches to inquiry as it would be more within teachers’ ZPD (Vygotsky 1978). The

1574 Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1571–1592

reasoning for the VCL operating more effectively within teachers’ inquiry ZPD is that theconcepts will still be familiar to the teachers, but issues related to glassware, chemicals, andother safety issues would be removed. Also, such a problem would operate more withinstudents’ ZPD as students may not have been exposed to such decision making related topractical work before and may be better equipped to make such decisions in a laboratoryafter using a VCL. As a result of these affordances of the VCL, students and teachers couldmake an easier transition to the ‘new roles and responsibilities’ (van der Valk and de Jong2009) required of them for inquiry. The features of the titration problem are detailed in a latersection.

Research Tools

The teachers were asked to teach a guided inquiry lesson using the VCL following aniterative discussion of what inquiry is, based on current research on inquiry (Blanchard et al.2010; Urhahne et al. 2010) and on previous research carried out by the authors (Donnelly etal. 2011a, b; see Appendix 1 for handout provided to the teachers). The research tools usedin this study (to capture teachers’ perceptions of their use of inquiry and the type of inquiryoccurring within lessons using the VCL) included the Inquiry Science Implementation Scale(ISIS) (Brandon et al. 2009) in a ‘talk-aloud’ manner, video observations, ReformedTeaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) (Piburn et al. 2000; Sawada et al. 2002), and a finalinterview.

The ISIS is a 22-item self-report instrument with a five-point Likert scale (never toalways) focused on the extent to which inquiry is embedded within classroom practice(see Appendix 2). The ISIS is intended to address the implementation of scienceinvestigations in three phases: the introduction phase, the preparation and conductionphase of the investigation, and the summary phase in which students consolidate theirlearning from the previous phases (Brandon et al. 2009). The primary author used theISIS in a test–retest manner, but also modified the ISIS so that it could be appliedafter an individual lesson. For ease of clarification, the three stages of ISIS use willbe described as Pre-ISIS, Lesson ISIS, and Final-ISIS. The Lesson ISIS simplyinvolved a change in the stem for each statement on the Pre-ISIS, i.e. in this lessonhow often did you, as opposed to, when teaching science how often do you? Hence,short-term and long-term feedbacks were obtained from using the ISIS in this manner.Teachers completed a ‘Pre-ISIS’ before using the VCL, taught a lesson with the VCLand then completed the ‘Lesson ISIS’ immediately after the lesson, and a few weekslater completed the ‘Final-ISIS’. The talk-aloud protocol for the ISIS provided insightinto teachers’ rationale in selecting particular items and, thus, gave a novel approachto using the ISIS as a qualitative tool for a case study approach.

The RTOP (Piburn et al. 2000; Sawada et al. 2002) is an observation protocol that focuseson the implementation of inquiry and other various features of a teacher’s practice within aclass. The RTOP uses a Likert scale that ranges from 0 (never occurred) to 4 (verydescriptive) for 25 items. Some example items on the RTOP are:

& The lesson was designed to engage students as members of a learning community. (Item 2)& In this lesson, student exploration preceded formal presentation. (Item 3)& The focus and direction of the lesson was often determined by ideas originating with

students. (Item 5)& Connections with other content disciplines and/or real-world phenomena were explored

and valued. (Item 10)

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1571–1592 1575

& Students were actively engaged in thought-provoking activity that often involved thecritical assessment of procedures. (Item 13)

& The teacher’s questions triggered divergent modes of thinking (Item 17)& Active participation of students was encouraged and valued. (Item 21)& The teacher acted as a resource person, working to support and enhance student inves-

tigations. (Item 24).

Despite the RTOP being traditionally used for a large number of observations so as toprovide statistical data, the RTOP still provided a useful and well-validated observationprotocol through which to view a smaller number of observations for this study. Elements ofthe final interview topic guide were taken from Ermeling (2010) (Brad Ermeling, personalcommunication) who carried out reflective interviews with teachers after implementinginquiry teaching units. The purpose of the final interview was to highlight the positivesand the difficulties associated with using the VCL to support inquiry and what could bechanged.

Participants and Timeline

The study involved four teachers, three males and one female (Eric, Shane, Mark, andSusan). Details of each participant are provided in Table 1.

This study is the third stage of a four-stage research design. For details of stages 1 and 2,see Donnelly et al. (2011a, b). The three male teachers were involved in stage 2 of theresearch; thus, the authors were familiar with these teachers’ practices. The three maleteachers would have expressed having favourable attitudes towards the use of ICT in theirlessons. However, the exact ways in which they used ICT in their lessons differed, fromteacher-centred approaches to student-centred approaches (Donnelly et al. 2011a). As anewly qualified teacher, Susan was still questioning the exact uses of ICT in her lessons,but expressed a desire to give students more ownership of their learning. Susan teaches in agirls’ school, but boys from a neighbouring boys’ school attend her chemistry classes as it isnot offered in their school. Mark changed from teaching a titration problem to fifth yearstudents (15–17 years old) to a density problem with second year students (13–14 years old)due to time constraints. At the beginning of this research project, the Second Level SupportService (a support service for Irish secondary school teachers) recommended teachers whowould be potentially willing to become involved in a research project. Teachers were

Table 1 Information on teachers in the case studies

Teacher pseudonym/characteristics Eric Mark Shane Susan

Years of experience 20 + 20+ 20+ 1

School type Mixed Boys Mixed Girls

Class 5th years 2nd years 5th years 5th years

No. of students (male/female) 14 (10M/4F) 16 10 (6M/4M) 21 (8M/13F)

School location City suburb Rural big town Rural town Rural big town

ICT comfort High High High Medium

Teaching approach Inquiry Didactic Didactic/inquiry Didactic/inquiry

Understanding of inquiry High Low High Low

VCL problem taught Titration Density Titration Titration

Positive attitude to VCL High Medium High Medium

1576 Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1571–1592

contacted, the details of the project were explained to them, and they were met with at theirschool if they wanted to participate. The data for this study were collected from September2010 to March 2011.

Data Collection and Analysis

Teachers were met three times in total. On the first visit, the nature of the study and what wasrequired was explained to the teachers. If the teachers were then happy to proceed, theprimary author iteratively discussed interpretations of inquiry with them. These discussionsinvolved highlighting some views on inquiry from the literature and from previous researchby the authors (see Appendix 1). Teachers’ views on inquiry were sought to ensureunderstanding and alignment of interpretations. It was also ensured that each teacher wascomfortable with the technical use of the problem on the VCL. The Pre-ISIS was then alsocarried out. On the second visit, teachers were observed teaching a lesson using the VCL.These lessons were video-recorded. Teachers were asked to complete an ISIS after the lessonspecific to the lesson they had just carried out. On the final visit, teachers completed aninterview and a final ISIS. All ISISs were completed in a talk-aloud manner.

All data were transcribed and analysed in Nvivo 8 software using an adaptation ofErtmer’s (1999) second-order barriers to ICT integration as an analytical framework forinquiry integration: (1) teaching methods, (2) student–teacher roles, (3) management andorganisational styles, and (4) assessment types. First-order barriers represent factors that canbe easily overcome with greater funding, e.g. equipment, need for support, appropriateresources, etc. Second-order barriers are much more difficult to change and relate toteachers’ core pedagogical beliefs and, thus, are readily applicable to the integration ofinquiry-based approaches.

Features of the Virtual Chemistry Laboratory

The VCL used in this study was developed by the Chemcollective at the ChemistryDepartment in Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh (see Yaron et al. 2006). The VCL(see Fig. 1) is a Java applet that contains a stockroom of chemicals (left-hand side of Fig. 1)that students can bring on to the workbench (centre of Fig. 1) and add solutions to each otheras they see fit. Students can interpret what is happening from the ‘solution info’ provided(right-hand side of Fig. 1). All aspects of the experimental design are at the students’discretion, from what size beaker to pick and what amount of solution to add. This openinfrastructure is what makes this simulation unique from other virtual laboratory simulationsthat have limited degrees of freedom for students to investigate like real scientists. Examplesof the topics covered include thermochemistry, solubility, density, and acids and bases. Thesoftware is available free to download or run online at http://www.chemcollective.org/vlab/vlab.php. Hence, there is minimal cost in using this VCL. Importantly, the VCL contains anauthoring tool that allows specific problems to be added to the VCL. This authoring toolallowed the authors to encompass a ‘zoomed-in perspective’ (Rutten et al. 2011, p. 150) indesigning a problem on the VCL that specifically supported a guided inquiry approach.

Problems on the VCL

The two problems on the VCL (titration and density) used in this study will now beexplained with particular reference to how they can promote inquiry. Both of these problemslink to practical work experiments on the Irish science curriculum.

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1571–1592 1577

Firstly, in terms of the vinegar problem, students were presented with a problem descrip-tion on the VCL which explained that customers were complaining that the vinegar in someof their local fast-food restaurants had no bite. Samples of vinegar had been taken from threelocal fast-food restaurants and were contained within the stockroom of the VCL. Studentswere also supplied with a sample of supermarket vinegar. Additional items in the stockroomincluded a 0.01-M sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solution, water, phenolphthalein, and methylorange indicators. The problem asked students to design and carry out an experiment todetermine whether any of the samples of the vinegar had been watered down. In carrying outthis experiment on the VCL, students were expected to have a basic understanding oftitrations, but teachers were asked by the primary author not to give students details relatingto this particular experiment. Such a problem is thus within students’ ZPD, but the VCLaffords students’ greater decision making in the experimental design and facilitates inquirydevelopment as students can answer many of their own questions through the VCL andreceive instant feedback on whether their approach is correct. This approach for studentswould be in distinct contrast to a traditional instructions-based approach to practical work(Abrahams and Millar 2008). It was expected that students would run into difficulty in theexperiment in determining what indicator to use and to also realise that the acid would haveto be diluted as it was much more concentrated than the 0.01-M NaOH. Otherwise, studentswould get very low volumes for their endpoints of the titration. The authors were interestedin how students would inquire and manage to overcome the difficult aspects of theseexperiments, if at all, and also how the teacher would react to the students in meeting thesedifficulties.

Secondly, another problem on the VCL was that of a density problem (see Fig. 2). Theproblem description on the VCL explained that three metals had been mixed up in ajewellery store. The students were told that by being given the three densities of the metals,they could work out a way to determine which metal was which, based on its density. It was

Fig. 1 Screenshot of vinegar problem on the virtual chemistry laboratory

1578 Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1571–1592

suggested to students that they may have to use a graduated cylinder. It was expected thatstudents would run into difficulty in determining what size of graduated cylinder (three sizeswere supplied) to use and what amounts of metal to add (any amount could be used), andoverall, completing the problem would expose students’ understanding of density. Thesedecisions of experimental design may appear on the surface trivial, but with studentscommonly engaged in passive practical work (Abrahams and Millar 2008), this VCLproblem would highlight important student understanding of experimental process and theirwillingness to make decisions as part of an inquiry process within their ZPD. Again, theauthors were also interested in the role the teacher would play in aiding students who runinto difficulty in solving the problem. The VCL supports the students within a ZPD forinquiry development in that they can readily change the amounts of metal they use and alsochange the graduated cylinder in seeking improvements to their approach. This approach issomething that would be very difficult to do within a real context as students’ attention canbe drawn more to the physical manipulative aspects of an experiment (losing time setting up,handling chemicals safely, doing further setup to change variables, and tidying up) than tothe cognitive aspects of the experiment (Donnelly et al. 2011a). Such physical manipulativeaspects are important, but become cumbersome when already mastered (Donnelly et al.2011a).

Limitations of the Study

As with any case study approach, it is important to avoid generalising beyond the particularcase (Guthrie 2010). Each teacher in this study has unique attributes that distinguish themfrom other teachers; as a result, this would impact their use of the VCL, e.g. school culture,experience, knowledge, etc. Mark, for example, teaching in a boys’ school, preferred not touse the VCL with fifth year students, instead choosing to teach second year students who

Fig. 2 Screenshot of density problem on the virtual chemistry laboratory

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1571–1592 1579

have less of an examination focus, whilst Susan had boys from a neighbouring school takepart in her Chemistry class. However, it is idiosyncrasies like these that can be viewed as theadvantages for case study research. Despite these idiosyncrasies, common threads canemerge across the four teachers in their use of the VCL, but extending these results to otherteachers should be done tentatively. Such common threads were supported by the ISIS andRTOP. Despite these research instruments being normally used for studies involving largersamples, they still offer valuable frames to consider smaller groups of teachers as theinterpretation of statements on such instruments can be informative, offering ecologicalvalidity to the study, e.g. using the ISIS in a talk-aloud manner.

A limitation of the study is that only one observation was conducted for eachteacher. In relation to the Irish context, there is a difficulty of access to schools, andas a result, certain limitations derive from this. The findings from each observationmay not be indicative of each teacher’s overall practice, and reactive effects of aclassroom observer may have contributed to the behaviours observed (Bryman 2008).The authors have been cognisant of these limitations in analysing the data. Anempirical study on learning differences using the VCL could be done with a groupof secondary school students that did not have an examination focus. However, thiswould still entail overcoming certain obstacles, as noted in a previous section, and didnot align with the research focus for this study.

Results

The results are presented in three parts: (1) Inquiry Science Implementation Scale (ISIS), (2)Video Observations and Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP), and (3) finalinterviews.

Inquiry Science Implementation Scale

The ISIS highlighted many interesting factors relating to teachers’ practices on a general andspecific level. Table 2 indicates the differences between the three stages of ISIS use.

As the focus of the Pre- and Final-ISIS was teacher practice in general as opposed tospecific practice (Lesson-ISIS), the results of the ISIS will be presented in two parts: (a) thePre-ISIS and Final-ISIS, and (b) the Lesson-ISIS.

The Pre-ISIS and Final-ISIS

The consistency between the Pre-ISIS and the Final-ISIS varied between the teachers (seeTable 3). An in-depth statistical analysis of the ISIS comments was not carried out due to thesmall number of participants. Eric had the most consistency, with 14 of the same responses

Table 2 Conduction of each ISIS

ISIS type Pre-ISIS Lesson-ISIS Final-ISIS

Conducted Conducted 2–3 weeks before theVCL lesson

Conducted after theVCL lesson

Conducted 2–3 weeks after theVCL lesson

Focus General practice Lesson-specific; VCLuse

General practice

1580 Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1571–1592

in the Pre-ISIS and the Final-ISIS. Shane had eight of the same responses, Mark had10 the same, and Susan had four the same. However, Eric’s and Shane’s otherresponses only differed by 1 on the Likert scale, except one item for Eric. Thiswould highlight that their overall practice has remained quite similar after havingcarried out teaching the lesson using the VCL. Nearly half of Mark’s responses arethe same, but the other responses are quite spread. This would suggest that he hasbeen reconsidering certain elements of his practice. A large portion of Susan’sresponses to the Pre-ISIS and Final-ISIS differ, and even more so than Mark’s. Thiscould suggest that she is still considering large elements of her practice and could beexpected as she is a newly qualified teacher.

All four teachers illustrated a focus on certain elements of practical work on the ISIS.These responses will now be discussed in relation to items on the ISIS encompassing theconduction phase of the experiment and the summary phase of the experiment.

Firstly, in terms of the conduction phase of the experiment (items 10–12, 18, 21; seeAppendix 2), all four teachers noted ‘often’ to ‘always’ for items in the Pre-ISIS and Final-ISIS. When considering his monitoring of small group progress in the Final-ISIS, Markhighlighted that it is important to do as “they [students] should be moving along”. Such aresponse may suggest a focus more on students completing the experiment than necessarilyunderstanding it. Susan also highlighted the importance of “always walking around talkingto them [students]” from a safety perspective. This response would suggest a view of theteacher’s role as monitoring and interacting with students during experiments. In relation toquestioning students as they conduct experiments, Eric highlighted a focus on interactioninvolving questioning for understanding rather than “telling them [students] what they aredoing”.

Secondly, in terms of the summary phase of experiments, teachers gave significantlyvaried responses, highlighting contrasting views on the value and time placed on findingsfrom experiments. Eric noted that he would view statements on the ISIS relating to findingsas part of the one activity when doing experimental work in that ‘variations in readings’would be considered and discussed in order to develop a better understanding of theexperiment. Shane noted that he did not discuss variations in data enough, but did see thevalue in it for developing scientific methods. However, he explained that “the clock isticking so you’ve to go along to the next thing”, noting pressure from an ‘overloaded’syllabus. He believed that reduced content would allow more time for student discussion andresearch.

Mark had mixed responses on the summary phase of experiments. He commented ‘often’on students sharing predictions in the Pre-ISIS, noting “I would discuss in advance whatthey would expect so I’d say very often”. This comment hints at more of a cookbookapproach in telling students what to expect rather than the students making genuinepredictions. However, in the Final-ISIS, Mark ticked ‘never’ for students sharing

Table 3 Difference between Pre- and Final-ISIS responses

Pre/post-ISIS Same Differ by 1 Differ by 2 Differ by 3 Differ by 4

Eric 14 7 1 0 0

Shane 8 14 0 0 0

Mark 10 4 4 4 0

Susan 4 8 6 3 1

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1571–1592 1581

predictions, explaining that he would “have the fear there that…some group might havesome completely ridiculous prediction altogether and could be ridiculed”. This is a validconcern in getting students to make predictions, but it would lead to questions about thelearning environment in the classroom, in that students may feel intimidated by their peersand are not encouraged to give their ideas. In relation to students considering errors, Marknoted in the Pre-ISIS that he would tell students that by doing the experiment a number oftimes, “they would be reducing the errors”, but would not challenge students afterwards toconsider their errors unless “they’d one result totally off”. He marked students contrastingexplanations of findings as ‘rarely’, commenting:

I find that the experiments get drawn out towards the end and you’re generally kind ofrushing towards the end to get them to finish up, clean up and so forth so it’s mainlygetting results and drawing a quick table on the blackboard or whatever, but explan-ations wouldn’t be too drawn out.

These comments mirror Shane’s in that time becomes a factor towards the end ofexperiments, and as a result, the discussion of findings can tend to be sacrificed. Susan alsohad varied responses to items related to the summary phase. She noted in the Pre-ISIS thatshe has started to draw up the results more frequently for students to “get an overall idea”,but noted she did it ‘often’ in the Final-ISIS, saying she would take five minutes at the end todiscuss the results as a group and how the experiment could be improved. Susan noted shewould question students in particular if a result was out of the ordinary, but commented thatshe did not spend much time on comparing and contrasting students’ findings:

By the time they are finished their experiments and their write-ups I assume that theirexplanations and findings are correct which is perhaps something I shouldn’t do.

This comment aligns with Shane’s and Mark’s previous comments in that significantdiscussion of the findings can be left aside in preference to other activities or due to a lack oftime.

The Lesson-ISIS

The Lesson-ISIS highlighted certain considerations in relation to teachers’ practices in usinga VCL. Unsurprisingly, compared with the other ISISs completed by the teachers, there werea lot more ‘never’ boxes ticked. This was due to it only being one lesson. Teachers didexpress concern that the ISIS specific to the lesson did not reflect their overall practice, butfelt that it did represent the lesson they had just taught. Firstly, in terms of the conductionphase of an experiment, all four teachers marked checking designs for safety as ‘never’, yetthere was still a focus on other elements such as circulating, interacting, and questioning.This would highlight that the VCL facilitates a shift away from a focus on safety, but stillencourages the other items related to monitoring and interacting with students duringexperiments.

Secondly, in relation to the summary phase of an experiment, the Lesson-ISIS reinforcedthis idea that very little time, if any, is given to the discussion of findings during the course ofan experiment in a lesson and is something that may be done in a following lesson. Itemsrelated to discussing variations in data collected, having students share their predictions, andchallenging students to consider the effects of errors were marked ‘never’ by all fourteachers in the Lesson-ISIS despite teachers invariably noting in the Pre- and Final-ISISs

1582 Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1571–1592

that they feel they do this in general. In terms of contrasting students’ explanations offindings, Eric and Shane said ‘never’, whilst Mark said ‘always’ and Susan said ‘rarely’.Both Mark and Susan explained this in relation to comparing and contrasting findings withindividual groups of students. The difference with which Mark and Susan did this highlightsvarying perceptions of the two teachers in how much they felt they did this through thecourse of the lesson.

Video Observations and RTOP

The observations gave insight into the teachers’ practices and gave clarification to the ISIScompleted by each teacher, and, combined with the RTOP, provided triangulation of thedata. The RTOP was limited from statistical analysis due to the number of participants, butthe 25 statements on the RTOP provided a useful frame to consider the lessons in. As thelesson teachers taught was designed to be a ‘guided’ inquiry lesson, teachers scored 3 or 4 onthe majority of the statements (descriptive to very descriptive) on many of the RTOPstatements. The items that scored less were mostly outside of the teachers’ control (items7, 11, 16, and 17) due to the lesson design asked for by the authors. For example, items 11and 16 related to students using a variety of means (models, drawings, graphs, concretematerials, etc.) to represent and communicate ideas, when the VCL lesson did not facilitateenough time for these.

Item 7 related to whether the lesson promoted strongly coherent conceptual understand-ing. Eric, Shane, and Susan’s students were, for the most part, perplexed throughout thelesson, as observed in the video observations, and many left the lesson still perplexed, asnoted by the teachers to the primary author. Hence, it was difficult to mark the lessons ‘verydescriptive’ as strongly promoting coherent conceptual understanding. The lessons didpromote conceptual understanding, but how coherent this was for students was unclear.Also, in the follow-up interview, Susan expressed uneasiness in leaving her studentsperplexed, whereas Eric and Shane saw it as a valuable exercise. Mark’s students seemedto have developed conceptual understanding, but how deep their understanding was isquestionable due to Mark giving them a lot of the information.

Item 17 related to the teacher’s questions triggering divergent modes of thinking.Eric and Shane made attempts at triggering divergent modes of thinking. Eric, forexample from the video observation, had a student ask him if there was any way ofincreasing the molarity of the NaOH solution due to the colour change occurring soquickly. Eric responded by asking the student whether there was another way of doingit other than increasing the molarity of the base, to which the student responded“weakening the acid”. This simple prompt by Eric caused the student to thinkdifferently about their approach to the problem. Susan also attempted such question-ing, but her students needed more scaffolding as they were not used to this approach.Mark showed glimpses of this, but for the most part, his questioning was lower orderand directed students’ thinking. The following dialogue is between Mark and twostudents (taken from the video observation):

Teacher: Okay, how do you calculate density?Student B: Mass over volume.Teacher: Mass over volume so you’ve got to get the mass of a certain volume or thevolume of a mass. So how are you going to go about doing it? I can see you’re using agraduated cylinder and what does that measure?Student A: Volume.

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1571–1592 1583

Teacher: Volume. So you’re putting metal 1 into the graduated cylinder. Now thebalance there is saying 40.9. What’s that the mass of?Student B: The cylinder.Teacher: Empty?Student B: Yes.Teacher: There’s nothing in it, okay. So now what do you do?Student A: If we tare it.Teacher: Okay. We’ll put it back to zero now, okay next?Student B: Stick in the mass of metal.Teacher: Okay. Do that so.Student B: How much should I stick in?Teacher: You decide.

Despite the open infrastructure of the VCL, the teacher has removed a large portion ofstudent inquiry by over-scaffolding the students through the problem. Students’ responsesare short, which would suggest they are looking to tell the teacher what he wants to hear. Itcould be argued that Mark is teaching younger students than the other teachers and feelssuch an approach is more suitable to younger students.

Final Interviews

The final interview contained questions looking for teachers to reflect on certain aspects ofthe lesson they had taught using the VCL. The findings discussed here relate to (a) teachers’views on the lesson being taught as a guided inquiry lesson, (b) perceived strengths of thelesson, and (c) perceived weaknesses of the lesson.

Lesson Taught as Inquiry

All the teachers felt that the lesson using a VCL aligned with a guided inquiryapproach, but this did not mean they felt the lesson went well. Eric expresseddisappointment in how he felt a number of students took to the problem, explainingthat students are so used to having things chopped down into “very easily digestednuggets of information” and having everything set up. Hence, Eric felt presentingstudents with a fully stocked laboratory, giving them a problem, and telling them togo figure would take students more practice to become better at it. Shane alsoexpressed surprise at having to aid some students more than he expected, wheresome students were slow to identify what the question was asking them and neededfurther clarification on the problem or their approach to the problem.

Mark felt that his students were able to work through the problem quite well bythemselves, but his students had already spent time doing a similar density problem inthe physical laboratory. However, Susan’s comments resonated with Eric’s and Shane’scomments in terms of her students not taking well to a guided inquiry approach.Susan noted that the approach definitely aligned with inquiry and that is why her“students hated it so much”. Susan explained that her students like structure androutine as it is what they are most familiar with. Despite this, she noted that herstudents were still thinking about questions they had from the problem on the VCLwhen they were doing a similar problem in the physical laboratory a week later. Thiscomment from Susan would suggest a very important link between content retentionand the development of inquiry-based skills. This comment from Susan could also be

1584 Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1571–1592

related to Nuthall (2005) who noted the importance of students encountering some-thing meaningful three times in order to retain it.

Strengths of the Lesson

The teachers noted a number of strengths in the lesson. Eric highlighted the utility of theVCL to cater to mixed ability in that nearly all students were making an effort to solve theproblem and thinking of different approaches. He also felt that the inquiry approach was agood movement away from simply having students recall content in that “you could see thatthey [students] were actually thinking and working on it”. Shane noted that the lesson wasmuch more student-centred than teacher-centred and that students were able to work away attheir own pace. Shane also noted that much more problem solving was occurring throughoutthe lesson than students simply following a procedure. He highlighted that students can getbogged down on procedure in the physical laboratory in terms of rinsing glassware, gettingthings out of cupboards, and setting up. However, the VCL allowed students to movebeyond this and allowed students to get to the ‘core problem’ of the experiment much morequickly.

Mark saw strength in the lesson in that some of his students collaboratively refined theirapproach to the experiment so as to get more accurate results, which was something he hadnot expected. He also noted that this was quite distinct from students’ normal procedure offollowing instructions when doing practical work. This comment relates to Shane’s com-ments in that students had much more ownership in doing the problem than would be thenorm. It also highlights the social aspect of students solving the problem together. Susan alsomade note of her students working well together. She made note that the VCL catered tovarying student abilities within her class and, thus, encouraged all students to solve theproblem.

Weaknesses of the Lesson

Teachers noted particular areas of weakness that were not all necessarily related to thelesson, but had to do with students’ previous experiences, issues of ‘hands-on’ practicalwork, and classroom management. Eric noted weakness in students’ “ability to try and teaseout what the problems are”. He felt that if students are given a lot of information, they find itdifficult to filter it to find the clear information given that will help them solve the problem.He explained that the main reason for this student weakness was a ‘lack of practice’ inproblem solving. Shane highlighted a weakness of the lesson in that students did not get‘hands-on’ practical skills “actually really diluting solutions, handling glassware, making upchemicals and doing all the necessary things if you were to do a real experiment”. However,he questioned the value of it as a weakness depending on whether the aim was to teach a labtechnician or someone involved in laboratory management.

Mark commented on a difficulty in terms of classroom management whilst using com-puters. He felt that some students can tend to get distracted, by games on a computer forexample, so it is important to ensure that they are monitored and are kept on task. Susannoted a weakness in that she felt her students gave up too easily in attempts to solve theproblem. In explicating why students did this, she noted:

It’s new and different for them. It’s, you know, they don't do inquiry. They’re given theanswer and then they do an experiment. They don’t use that inquiry system in the labsand that’s what I think frustrated them. It’s something completely different.

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1571–1592 1585

Discussion

The use of the VCL with these four teachers in a guided inquiry manner brings manyimportant considerations to light in terms of second-order barriers to inquiry, how a VCLmay overcome these barriers, and also highlights the utility of the ISIS for giving insight intoteacher decision making.

Firstly, in relation to the second-order barriers, many issues came to light. In termsof teaching methods and teacher–student roles, all of the teachers in the case studies,apart from Eric, see the area of analysing and critiquing the findings of an experimentas an add-on to classroom practical work as opposed to an integral part of it. Thisfinding has important implications for students’ role in how they perceive data, wheretheir role is to simply get the right answer or produce the phenomenon (Abrahamsand Millar 2008; Wong and Hodson 2008), as indicated by the teacher. As a result,effectively integrating such inquiry may meet significant cultural resistance fromstudents as they are not used to it. It is not that teachers are indifferent about theanalysis of findings, but in light of covering the syllabus within certain time con-straints for a ‘high-stakes’ assessment, it becomes a secondary activity, only to bedone if there is time at the ‘end of class’ to open up such debate.

Some students found the guided inquiry approach quite alien, with the exception ofMark’s students, who taught the lesson closer to verification-type inquiry. Despite inquiryembedded within the VCL, students have had a ‘lack of practice’ with such an approach, asnoted by Eric. It could be argued that students have to work within a certain ZPD before theycan begin to consider more challenging tasks like controls, isolating variables, fair testing,etc., that are supported by simulations (Scalise et al. 2011). Students need to get used to whatit feels like to start making decisions, becoming self-directed learners, and these decisionsstart with basic ones such as what volume, mass, or instrument to use in an experiment. Thispoint is also valid for teachers in that they need to see this decision-making process as‘learning’ and valuable. With the current learning culture in schools so completely teacher-led and dominated by simple recall, the most trivial decisions for students can be problem-atic since taking initiative and responsibility are so alien to them. The introduction of a 15 %practical assessment to the Irish context by the NCCA that can include material beyond thesyllabus is perhaps a useful attempt to move away from simple recall and require greaterstudent responsibility.

Based on the ISIS, teachers’ management and organisational styles (second-order barrier)relating to practical work are strongly guided by a focus on student safety. Through the useof the VCL, teachers were afforded more time to observe as they were not focused on safety.This shift in focus could influence teachers’ awareness of what is going on in terms oflearning and student decision making and provide more time for the analysis of findings.Interestingly, the two teachers (Eric and Shane) who had a consistent view on their use ofinquiry on the ISIS taught in mixed schools, whilst the other two teachers (Mark and Susan)who had greater discrepancies in their perceived use of inquiry-based approaches taught insingle-sex schools. This finding raises the question of the influence of school culture onteacher practice towards inquiry. Vedder-Weiss and Fortus (2011) noted a difference in themotivation of students to do science between traditional and democratic schools, withgreater motivation from democratic schools where students have more decision making.This difference may also be the case in Irish schools, where teachers in mixed schools wouldbe more democratic in the sense of having to foster a school environment that caters to bothsexes. In relation to gender, the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study(TIMSS) 2007 notes that girls (eighth grade, 13–14 years old) tend to outperform boys on

1586 Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1571–1592

average at knowing, applying, and reasoning. However, it is not clear whether these girlswere in single-sex or mixed schools.

Secondly, the VCL demonstrated many ways in which the second-order barriersnoted above could be overcome. As noted by Shane, the VCL allows a movementaway from teaching methods solely focused on procedures to more problem solving,and this is aided through the VCL facilitating student-centred approaches. The VCLchallenges students to engage in experimental design, something they are not used to.This engagement serves to present a more authentic picture of science to students inthat many scientists are not given a procedure and must decide an approach to aproblem themselves. Engagement in experimental design, in turn, makes it not justfeasible and acceptable to have different solutions (Wallace and Kang 2004) but alsofeasible and acceptable for students to have different approaches to the same problem.Simulations that embed experimental procedures in their design place restrictions onstudents’ scientific inquiry, and it is important for educators to critique simulations insuch light. Such restrictions would be better developed by teachers in context (Gerardet al. 2010), but professional development would be needed on applying suchrestrictions in a suitable manner.

Due to the removal of certain practical work characteristics by simulations, such asphysicality, limited resources, cleaning equipment, etc. (Scalise et al. 2011), students canget to the findings stage of an experiment much more quickly through the infrastructure ofthe VCL. Hence, teachers would be afforded more time to discuss and critique the findingswith their students, something that is missing based on the case studies presented here.However, the cultural implications for these new roles and responsibilities for students andteachers would need careful consideration and scaffolding. This consideration goes beyondlooking just at the internal aspects of a simulation to many of the external aspects noted byRutten et al. (2011) such as the teacher, classroom scenario, or the curriculum. The casestudies in this research would point in particular to the role of the teacher and the perceptionsof teachers in what this role entails.

An important point relating to the student–teacher roles using the VCL is that itcaters very effectively to mixed ability students. Students can test many questionsthey have within the VCL and, hence, progress at ‘their own pace’. Of course, asnoted by Shane, a drawback of the VCL is that despite its advantages, it is still notreal. However, as noted previously, the VCL focuses on the ‘minds-on’ aspects ofpractical work and is intended to complement practical work, not replace it. Also,Zacharia and Olympiou (2011) question the value of practical work as they argue thatthere is a paucity of research on how touch affects learning, yet educators still placean emphasis on the value of physical manipulation. Many questions are yet to beanswered in relation to where practical work and a VCL fit into the broader picture ofstudents’ learning of science.

Finally, the use of the ISIS in a ‘talk-aloud’ manner gave some interesting findings,but it would be important to use them in combination with other research methods toget an accurate picture. The ‘talk-aloud’ approach used in this study with the ISISgave interesting insights into teacher decision making around their practice whendoing experiments, and the ISIS could easily be used as a reflective tool for teachersin their practice. Teachers scored relatively well on the RTOP as the lesson wasspecifically designed in an inquiry manner and was supported strongly through theuse of the VCL. The teachers noted themselves the utility of the VCL to supportinquiry, but it is clear from the findings that the culture of classrooms needs to beaddressed to sustain this practice.

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1571–1592 1587

Conclusion

The confinements of having to teach a mandated and crowded curriculum within a fixedtime period create a classroom environment with limited opportunities for authentic studentinquiry. When it comes to practical work, the restrictions become even greater. Manyeducators perceive that it would be ideal to let students experiment openly through physicalmanipulation, but as mentioned, it is resource-intensive and has many associated safetyissues. This example of a VCL frees students and teachers from the constraint of safety andallows them to investigate more openly. However, even if the assessment structure changedto align with inquiry approaches, teachers would need adequate professional development todevelop relevant inquiry ‘schemata’ (Korthagen 2010), i.e. knowing how to act, especiallywhen an inquiry approach is in complete conflict with many teachers’ habitus (Bourdieu1979), i.e. common ways they act. A VCL is a much more ‘practical’ solution to greaterstudent inquiry in the context of secondary school environments and could facilitate a newform of assessment that aligns with inquiry and provide an open architecture to allow forteacher contribution. Further research is needed in relation to where a VCL would fit in theoverall context in the student experience of science, especially relating to the difficulty insequencing a curriculum that places increasing emphasis on challenging approaches toinquiry in order to develop students’ scientific habits of mind.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the Irish Research Council for Science, Engineering andTechnology (IRCSET) for funding this research and would also like to thank the Chemcollective at Carnegie-Mellon University for their support of the project. The authors would like to thank the teachers and studentswho participated in this research. Finally, the authors would like to thank the reviewers for their feedback onthe manuscript.

Appendix 1. Description of Inquiry

Notes for the Teacher

Teaching Methodology The lesson is intended to be carried out in a way that closely alignsto an inquiry approach, and as the problem is already set, it would be best described as aguided inquiry approach (see Table 4 below). The data collection methods and the interpre-tation of results are intended to be left up to the students as much as possible. However, thiswill depend on student ability/previous knowledge, and the teacher will need to make ajudgement call as to how much scaffolding each individual student would need (if any) fromobserving the conversation between groups of students. Certain students may make

Table 4 Levels of inquiry (Abrams et al. 2007) adapted from Schwab (1962) and Colburn (2000)

Source of the question Data collection methods Interpretation of results

Level 0: verification Given by teacher Given by teacher Given by teacher

Level 0: structured Given by teacher Given by teacher Open to students

Level 0: guided Given by teacher Open to students Open to students

Level 0: open Open to students Open to students Open to students

Taken from Blanchard et al. (2010)

Level 3 is not viewed as the ‘ideal’ way to teach science; the optimal level of inquiry will vary according to theclassroom context and the demands of the material

1588 Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1571–1592

connections with the right teacher questioning or with additional time to think thingsthrough. Ultimately, the guiding observational question for the teacher throughout the lessonshould be “How often are the students making decisions?”

There are many limitations of a physical lab in that they can be messy, resource-intensive,and time-consuming, e.g. a teacher could spend 20 min getting a lab ready and another20 min cleaning it. These reasons, more than anything, restrict the pedagogical decisionmaking of the teacher. As a result, a teacher’s approach to practical work can often benarrowed to ensuring that issues of physicality and manipulation are adhered to, e.g. issuesrelating to students having the right glassware, not breaking glassware, not wasting chem-icals, making careful additions, etc. There is little if anything a teacher can do to overcomethese restraints of the physical laboratory. Thus, practical work in many instances follows a‘cookbook’ format. This therefore allows the teacher little engagement with students on thehigher order aspects of experimental work during actual practical work, e.g. why would youuse this particular apparatus, why would you use this concentration, why would you carryout the experiment more than once?

The virtual lab gives time to the teacher to observe, reflect, and give feedback. Issues ofsafety and cost concerns are removed, and this allows students to more greatly question theirexperimental design, e.g. why am I using a 25 ml conical flask, why am I using thisparticular concentration, why does the indicator cause a colour change? In a guided inquiryapproach, the role of the teacher is to encourage these types of questions within theclassroom activity, but not to give the answer to the students directly. The teacher shouldask further questions in response to these questions, e.g. why would you not use a 25-mlconical flask over a 10-ml conical flask, what do you think is the purpose of using aparticular concentration, why not think about the properties of the solutions involved inthe titration? The teacher could also ask the students to consider these questions in groupsand to try to reach an answer through discussion. However, if the teacher finds that theguided inquiry approach does not work for certain students after additional questioning and/or group discussion, a structured inquiry approach may be necessary, e.g. the teacher givesthe student an explanation of why the vinegar samples must be diluted and why a particularindicator should be used. Again, it is important to note that the teacher must make ajudgement call on which approach is most appropriate.

It would be important at the start of the lesson for the teacher to make their teachingapproach very explicit to the students as it takes them time to be encultured into thisapproach of challenging the logic of their experimental design. Teachers can then enablecollaboration, encourage the students, and ensure learning throughout the lesson (seeTable 5). At the end of the lesson, the teacher could spend the 10–15 min evaluating thelesson with the students, e.g. from having observed different students doing the problem, the

Table 5 Five principles for the role of the teacher in collaborative inquiry learning

Principles Short description

Envision the lesson Create an image of the lesson, plan, and organise student task

Enable collaboration Arrange small groups or pairs so that one can learn from the other

Encourage students Support learners and provide guidance during knowledge acquisition

Ensure learning Monitor learning processes and check learning outcomes

Evaluate achievement Choose suitable means to assess processes and products of learning

Urhahne et al. (2010)

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1571–1592 1589

teacher could highlight different approaches and look for students to discuss which approachwould be better and why.

Appendix 2. Inquiry Science Implementation Scale (Brandon et al. 2009)

Q. When you teach chemistry, how frequently do you:

1. Demonstrate the use of a new instrument?

2. Have students write the problem or activity before doing an experiment?

3. Review relevant concepts and skills that were learned in previous lessons?

4. Introduce new vocabulary words?

5. Ask students to identify and define words?

6. Ask students to make predictions about an experiment?

7. Check to ensure that students understand new procedures before beginning an experiment?

8. Discuss how everyday situations directly relate to experiments that students are currently or will beconducting?

9. Check students’ designs for safety before allowing them to conduct their experiments?

10. Monitor small group progress during experiments?

11. Encourage students to collaborate within their groups?

12. Circulate and interact with students whilst they are conducting experiments?

13. Discuss variations in data collected by students following their experiments?

14. Have students share their predictions with the class?

15. Have students share their data or findings with the class?

16. Challenge students to consider the effects of errors on groups’ results?

17. Compare and contrast students’ explanations of findings?

18. Question students as they conduct their experiments?

19. Connect new information with students’ personal lives (interests, home environment, community,culture, etc.)?

20. Connect current events and other subjects with current science concepts, skills, and investigations?

21. Use questioning strategies to respond to students’ questions about experiments?

22. Have students ask questions about the scientific phenomena addressed during experiments?

References

Abrahams, I. (2009). Does practical work really motivate? A study of the affective value of practical work insecondary school science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(17), 2335–2353.

Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practicalwork as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1945–1969.

Abrahams, I. & Saglam, M. (2010). A study of teachers’ views on practical work in secondary schools inEngland and Wales. International Journal of Science Education, 32(6), 753–768.

Abrams, E., Southerland, S., & Evans, C. (2007). Inquiry in the classroom: necessary components of ausefuldefinition. In E. Abrams, S. A. Southerland, & P. Silva (Eds.), Inquiry in the science classroom: realitiesand opportunities. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Adlong, W., Bedgood, D., Bishop, A., Dillon, K., Haig, T., Helliwell, S., et al. (2003). On the path toimproving our teaching—reflection on best practices in teaching chemistry. Herdsa Conference Presen-tation and Publication, Canterbury.

1590 Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1571–1592

Baggott, L., & Nichol, J. (1998). Multimedia simulation. A threat to or enhancement of practical work inscience education? In J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science (pp. 252–270). London:Routledge.

Blanchard, M., Southerland, S., Osborne, J., Sampson, V., Annetta, L., & Granger, E. (2010). Is inquirypossible in light of accountability?: A quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guidedinquiry and verification laboratory instruction. Science Education, 94(4), 577–616.

Bourdieu, P. (1979). La distinction: critique sociale du jugement [Distinction: social critique of judgment].Paris: Les Editions de Minuit.

Brandon, P., Young, D., Pottenger, F., & Taum, A. (2009). The inquiry science implementation scale:development and applications. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 1135–1147.

Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Chadderton, C., & Torrance, H. (2011). Case Study. In B. Somekh & C. Lewin (Eds.), Theory and methods in

social research (2nd ed., pp. 53–60). London: Sage.Cobern, W., Schuster, D., Adams, B., Applegate, B., Skjold, B., Undreiu, A., et al. (2010). Experimental

comparison of inquiry and direct instruction in science. Research in Science & Technological Education,28(1), 81–96.

Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope, 23(6), 42–44.Donnelly, D., McGarr, O., & O’Reilly, J. (2011a). A framework for teachers’ integration of ICT into their

classroom practice. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1469–1483.Donnelly, D., O’Reilly, J., & McGarr, O. (2011b). The promotion of scientific inquiry in Irish post-primary

schools through the use of a virtual chemistry laboratory: implications for teacher education. Society forInformation Technology and Teacher Education (SITE), Nashville, TN, March 7–11.

Ermeling, B. (2010). Tracing the effects of teacher inquiry on classroom practice. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 26(3), 377–388.

Ertmer, P. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: strategies for technology integration.Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61.

Garnett, P. J., Garnett, P. J., & Hackling, M. (1995). Students’ alternative conceptions in chemistry: areview of research and implications for teaching and learning. Studies in Science Education, 25,69–95.

Gerard, L., Spitulnik, M., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Teacher use of evidence to customize inquiry scienceinstruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(9), 1037–1063.

Gerring, J. (2007). Case study research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Guthrie, G. (2010). Basic research methods. London: Sage.Herrenkohl, L., Tasker, T., & White, B. (2011). Pedagogical practices to support classroom cultures of

scientific inquiry. Cognition and Instruction, 29(1), 1–44.Hmelo-Silver, C., Duncan, R., & Chinn, C. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry

learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. (2004). The laboratory in science education: foundations for the twenty-first

century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54.Hofstein, A., Shore, R., & Kipnis, M. (2004). Providing high school chemistry students with opportunities to

develop learning skills in an inquiry-type laboratory: a case study. International Journal of ScienceEducation and Technology, 26, 47–62.

Ketelhut, D., & Nelson, B. (2010). Designing for real-world scientific inquiry in virtual environments.

Educational Research, 52(2), 151–167.Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an

analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teach-ing. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86.

Korthagen, F. (2010). Situated learning theory and the pedagogy of teacher education: towards an integrative

view of teacher behavior and teacher learning. Teacher and Teacher Education, 26, 98–106.National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (2009). Towards learning report. Retrieved 14 October 2010

from http://www.ncca.ie/en/Curriculum_and_Assessment/Post-Primary_Education/Senior_Cycle/Towards_Learning_an_overview_/Towards_learning_listening_to_schools.pdf.

National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press.Nuthall, G. (2005). The cultural myths and realities of classroom teaching and learning: a personal journey.

Teachers College Record, 107(5), 895–934.Pantelidis, V. (1997). Keynote speech. In M. Bevan (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference on

Virtual Reality in Education and Training. Loughborough (pp. 7–12).

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1571–1592 1591

Piburn, M., Sawada, D., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., Bloom, I., et al. (2000). Reformed teachingobservation protocol (RTOP): reference manual (ACEPT Technical Report No. INOO-3). Tempe, AZ:Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers.

Quellmalz, E., Timms, M., Silberglitt, M., & Buckley, B. (2012). Science assessments for all: integratingscience simulations into balanced state science assessment systems. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 49(3), 363–393.

Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W., & van der Veen, J. (2011). The learning effects of computer simulations inscience education. Computers in Education, 58(1), 136–153.

Sawada, D., Piburn, M., Judson, E., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., et al. (2002). Measuring reformpractices in science and mathematics classrooms: the reformed teaching observation protocol. SchoolScience and Mathematics, 102(6), 245–253.

Scalise, K., Timms, M., Moorjani, A., Clark, L., Holtermann, K., & Irvin, P. (2011). Student learning inscience simulations: design features that promote learning gains. Journal of Research in Science Teach-ing, 48(9), 1050–1078.

Science Community Representing Education (SCORE) (2010). Practical work in science: a report andproposal for a strategic framework. Retrieved 14 April 2011 from http://www.score-education.org/media/3668/report.pdf.

Schwab, J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J. Schwab & P. Brandwein (Eds.), The teaching ofscience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data. London: Sage.Solomon, J., Scott, L., & Duveen, J. (1996). Large-scale exploration of pupils’ understanding of the nature of

science. Science Education, 80, 493–508.Tobin, K., & Gallagher, J. J. (1987). What happens in high school science classrooms. Journal of Curriculum

Studies, 19, 549–560.Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., Bell, T., Mansfield, A., & Holmes, J. (2010). Role of the teacher in computer-

supported collaborative inquiry learning. International Journal of Science Education, 32(2), 221–243.van der Valk, T., & de Jong, O. (2009). Scaffolding science teachers in open-inquiry teaching. International

Journal of Science Education, 31(6), 829–850.Vedder-Weiss, D., & Fortus, D. (2011). Adolescents’ declining motivation to learn science: inevitable or not?

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 199–216.Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.Wallace, C., & Kang, N. (2004). An investigation of experienced secondary science teachers’ beliefs about

inquiry: an examination of competing belief sets. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(9), 936–960.

Webb, M. (2005). Affordances of ICT in science learning: implications for an integrated pedagogy. Interna-tional Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 705–735.

Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2008). From the horse’s mouth: what scientists say about scientific investigationand scientific knowledge. Science Education, 93(1), 109–130.

Yaron, D., Cuadros, J., Karabinos, M., Leinhardt, G., & Evans, K. (2006). Virtual laboratories and scenes tosupport chemistry instruction: lessons learned. In S. Cunningham, Y. George (Eds.), About invention andimpact: building excellence in undergraduate science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)education, (pp. 177–182). Washington, DC.

Zacharia, Z. (2007). Comparing and combining real and virtual experimentation: an effort to enhancestudents’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2),120–132.

Zacharia, Z., & Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physicslearning. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 317–331.

1592 Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1571–1592