UNIVERSITY AS REFO=
RM
AGENT: HOW INQUIRY CONCEPTIONS UNDERLYING A NON-TRADITIONAL RESEARCH EXPERI=
ENCE
FOR TEACHERS PROGRAM INTERSECT WITH THOSE OF SCIENCE TEACHERS AND OTHER
SCIENTISTS
Margaret
R. Blanchard,
D.
Penny
J. Gilmer,
The Natio=
nal
Science Foundation (NSF) has funded Research Experiences for Teachers (RETs=
) in
recent years as a way to give teachers experiences in doing science,
potentially bridging the gap between science teachers and scientists. The
Marine Ecology for Teachers (MET) program at Southern Central University (S=
CU)
in the southeastern part of the
Introduction
Well, here’s what the dream wor=
ld
was…the pipe dream was that I would take people out into the salt mar=
sh.
They would see and do this exercise [looking at periwinkles snails climbing=
up
the marsh grass and inquire why]. They would see that, yes, they [the K-12
teachers] could think scientifically, they think could do inquiry, that they
could do this and… they would go, ah ha! I see now what it’s all
about. Now, I can take this into my classroom where I do thus and such, and=
I
can provide this experience to my students.
That was my dream and so, of course, =
what
I found was that just by doing the experience of science, the inquiry
experience, it was…necessary but insufficient to get them to go into =
the
practical realm, to be able to translate that into how they deal with their
class, which was a disappointment for me, but a reality nonetheless.
Dr. Henry “Cap” Baher, Program PI, Reflecting on the fir=
st
year of the MET program, Personal interview
The MET Program was =
the
dream child of its two Principal Investigators (PIs), Dr. Kathleen Bransford
and Dr. Henry “Cap” Baher (all names are pseudonyms). Kathleen =
had
frequent contact with classroom teachers through her outreach activities as
director of a science center at SCU. Through her work with teachers in
professional development workshops, with curriculum materials such as GEMS
(Great Explorations in Math & Science), Kathleen became convinced that =
most
teachers had very little contact with conducting authentic science research,
either in prior classroom experiences or in more realistic research setting=
s.
She and Cap had collaborated on many projects, and they discussed this topic
frequently, with Cap seeing the marine laboratory as a natural fit for the
teachers to have contact with inquiry-based science. He had been involved w=
ith
teachers from a previous NSF-funded program at the university’s marine
laboratory (Spiegel, Collins, & Gilmer, 1995), in which teachers conduc=
ted
scientific research as part of coursework for a master’s degree. In t=
he
MET program, Cap and Kathleen planned to expand the earlier program timefra=
me,
and also to promote the development of the participants’ pedagogical
content knowledge (Dutrow, 2005). Cap and Kathleen wrote the grant with the
intention of serving teachers from around the state.
Cap and Kathleen
received an NSF grant, for five years of funding, beginning in fall of 2000.
The summer MET program alternated summer offerings between SCU’s near=
by
marine laboratory and a national fisheries laboratory in a coastal communit=
y a
few hours away. The program invited K-12 teachers of science to participate=
in
this commuter, field-based program, providing the teacher participants with
authentic, inquiry-based scientific research experiences (Dutrow, 2005).
Cap’s method for conducting inquiry with teachers was the model for t=
he
program (Lappert, 1996).
The MET program
integrated Cap and Kathleen’s intentions and goals with teachers who
participated in the program. As Cap’s introductory quote indicates, t=
he
MET program was not static, but changed each summer after program staff
formatively evaluated what had taken place. Indeed, after the first summer,=
program
staff made significant changes in key pedagogical aspects of the program to
better translate teachers’ learning to their classrooms, and they fur=
ther
refined the program further each year (Dutrow, 2005).
Our purpose with this study was to understand what Kathleen and Cap
understood inquiry to be in the year following the 4th year of t=
he
program, what they intended to accomplish with the MET program, and how tho=
se
conceptions compared with those of the program’s teacher participants=
and
compared with those of other scientists. As such, the questions guiding this
research are: What are the MET prog=
ram
PIs’ conceptions of inquiry-based science and their goals for the
teachers in the MET program? How do the PIs’ conceptions compare to t=
hose
of the program teachers? What are university scientists’ conceptions =
of
inquiry? What does the intersection of these conceptions and goals imply
regarding scientist/teacher partnerships for professional development? =
Theoretical
Framework
In recent years, a growing number of science educ=
ation
researchers report about the lack of contact most classroom teachers have h=
ad
with scientific inquiry or conducting inquiry-based science in their classr=
ooms
(e.g., Abrams & Southerland, 2003; Anderson, 2003; Gilmer, 1999; Windsc=
hitl,
2004). Inquiry-based teaching lacks a universal definition, even within the
field of science education (e.g., Moss, 2003; Olson, in review; Settlage, 2=
003;
Settlage & Blanchard, in review). In part, because of this, few science
teachers conduct inquiry-based science teaching in their classrooms (e.g., =
Keys
& Bryan, 2001; Woodbury & Gess-Newsome, 2002).
The NSF funded RETs =
as a
way to engage teachers in authentic science inquiry experiences. Therefore,=
RETs
also somewhat bridge the gap between science teachers and scientists by
enhancing teachers’ skills and knowledge (Odom, 2001, as cited in Dre=
sner
& Worley, 2006; Southerland et al., 2003). The MET program at CSU was o=
ne
such program, albeit one with a non-traditional design. “Typical̶=
1;
RETs connect teachers with scientists, usually in a formal setting. In these
situations, the teacher who joins the research as a learner typically studi=
es
what the scientist is studying, rather than coming up with their own resear=
ch
questions (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002; Dixon, Wilke, & LaFrazza, in rev=
iew;
Schwartz & Lederman, 2004, 2005).
In contrast, in the =
MET
program the intention was for teachers to engage in the scientific inquiry
process from the inception of developing their own question through the
presentation of findings. That is, the MET participants developed questions
from their own observations in the field, and conducted research with the assistance of scientists. An under=
lying
rationale for the MET program, therefore, was that, in conducting their =
own
scientific research, teachers would gain a better understanding of the proc=
ess
of science research. Teachers would then have a foundation, and hopefully w=
ould
transfer their learning to the classroom, thereby improving the science
instruction (i.e., inquiry-based science teaching) in their classrooms (Gra=
nger
& Herrnkind, 1999).
Certainly, providing
professional development experiences to teachers is an important way to ass=
ist
teachers in implementing inquiry-based science teaching in their own classr=
ooms
(Blanchard, Daigle & Malcom, 2005; Bodzin & Beerer, 2003; MacIsaac
& Falconer, 2002). In funding RETs, the NSF sometimes funds a university
science education/scientist team, as it did with the MET (e.g., Dresner &am=
p;
Worley, 2006; Granger & Herrnkind, 1999), although more often it funds =
an
individual scientist/teacher combination for the teacher to spend a short t=
ime
(like a summer) engaged in the scientist’s research (e.g., Dixon et a=
l.,
in review; Gilmer, 1999). If, in fact, teachers are lacking scientific rese=
arch
experiences, who better could provide the experience with authentic science
research than those who conduct research and who have the content knowledge=
so
often lacking in the backgrounds of teachers?
However, it has been
argued that the culture of science is very different from the culture of
education (Balinsky, 2006). If professional development is centered in a
scientific laboratory with a scientist in the lead position, it seems fair =
to
question the nature of the professional development that teachers would rec=
eive
in this setting. Let us assume, as was the case in the MET program, that the
goal was to give teachers authentic experiences in science as a foundation =
for
understanding the science they teach but perhaps have not ever experienced.
Some questions that might be addressed about RETs include: How do we best
convey inquiry to teachers? Are university scientists appropriate agents for
conveying authentic science research to teachers? What is it that scientists would convey to the teachers with wh=
om
they interact?
There is scant
connection in the literature between scientists’ conceptions of inqui=
ry
and how they portray those conceptions to their students; however, a few
studies try to gain an understanding of university scientists’ views =
of
inquiry. In Harwood et al. (2002) elicited 52 scientists’ conceptions=
of
inquiry using semi-structured interviews, with the goal of assembling a lis=
t of
the scientists’ characteristics regarding scientific inquiry. The
categories classify as “investigator” and
“investigation” (p. 1080). Top “investigator”
characteristics are: making connections; connections to other disciplines;
focus on process; analytical skills; persistence; and critical thinking. Top
characteristics of “investigations” include: literature-base; a
testable question; meaningful question; replicates; multiple methods;
systematics; and verification.
Another example of an
attempt to classify scientists’ views of inquiry is Schwartz and
Lederman’s study (2004) of 24 practicing scientists. Categories impor=
tant
and relevant to conducting inquiry are justification, data, reproducibility,
and prediction, which seem to fit under Harwood et al.’s characterist=
ics
of “investigations.” In a more recent study by those authors,
scientists also discussed the role of inference and models as components of
inquiry (Schwartz & Lederman, 2005). An earlier study on Cap (Lappert,
1996) describes how he embraced four roles as he interacted with teachers i=
n a
methods course: scientist as teacher; as coach; as guide; and as gopher (i.=
e.,
getting materials/equipment together for them). Southerland et al. (2003)
discuss scientists’ beliefs as enacted in the curriculum of their
courses, and these beliefs are important to consider when implementing
instructional changes with students.
![3D"Oval:](3D"Blanchard_revised_files/image001.gif")
As
a model of inquiry, the MET program staff set out to impact teachers’
conceptions of inquiry, and through these experiences, to shape the
teachers’ translation of inquiry into classroom practice (Granger &am=
p;
Herrnkind, 1999). In light of Southerland et al. (2003), it seems particula=
rly
salient to gain an understanding of the conceptions of inquiry held by Kath=
leen
and Cap, the program PIs, as well as their intentions and goals for the MET=
program.
Figure 1 illustrates how the goals and intentions of the MET program, as an
exemplar of an RET, potentially impacts the conceptions and hoped for enactment of inquiry by those teacher=
s in
the program. One might imagine that initially, the PIs’ goals and int=
entions
might not align with those of the teachers, who are operating out of a
classroom setting rather than that of a marine laboratory. In an ideal prog=
ram,
the PIs’ intentions for the program would influence those of the
participating teachers, and perhaps also respond to those initial conceptio=
ns
of the teachers and how the teachers think of inquiry with the final result=
of
the teachers’ and PIs’ conceptions and hoped for enactment of
inquiry more closely aligned.
![3D"Oval:](3D"Blanchard_revised_files/image002.gif")
![](3D"Blanchard_revised_files/image003.gif")
Pre Program &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Post
Program
Figure 1.
An Idealized Conceptual Framework f=
or the
MET Program’s Influence.
Previous research
suggests that teachers’ and their students’ value structures (Beck & Cowan, 1996) influence how they
understand the world, and therefore, how they interpret their experiences a=
nd
select to change their conceptions and actions (Davis & Blanchard, 2004;
Blanchard & Southerland, 2006; Yalaki, 2004). In
Methodology
and Methods
Naturalistic Evaluation
The literature suppo=
rts
the need for inquiry-based science teaching that incorporates context as a
major focus (Anderson & Helms, 2001; Keyes & Bryan, 2001; Yore, 200=
3).
A methodology that emphasizes the importance of context is naturalistic evaluation (Guba, 1987). In naturalistic inquiry, =
the
researcher is an important instrument for data collection and analysis, and=
as
such must have experiences that are comparable with those of the stakeholde=
rs
in the study (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper & Allen, 1993). As the researc=
her
for this study, Meg spent two summers (2003 and 2004) deeply engaged in the=
MET
program, thus gaining an integral understanding of the nature of the progra=
m as
well as personal relationships with the PIs of the MET project. Additionall=
y,
she experienced the 2003 program as the teachers did, participating fully in
all activities. In some ways, her multiple roles in the program gave her
different ways to interact with the participants and the program, thereby
allowing for more layers of interaction and ways of gaining meaning from the
data she collected. Additionally, all of the interpretations of this resear=
ch
were member checked multiple ti=
mes
with participants in the study, and interpretations were negotiated. This
interactive process of data collection and analysis is a critical feature of
naturalistic evaluation (Erlandson et al., 1993).
Data Sources
The data include: 1)
interview data of the PIs of the MET program, Dr. Kathleen Bransford and Dr.
Henry “Cap” Baher; 2) Pre and post program questionnaire data on
teachers’ conceptions of inquiry for the ten secondary science
teachers from the MET cohort in 2004; 3) Interview data from teachers to co=
rroborate
questionnaire data; 4) Data gleaned from the literature describing universi=
ty
scientists’ conceptions of inquiry; and 5) Self-report data by a
biochemist and science educator (third author) who reports on her conceptio=
ns
of inquiry, and goals and values for teachers resulting from direct experie=
nces
with RETs.
Interview Data of PIs
Meg interviewed each=
of
the PIs once for approximately 90 minutes, following the 2004 MET program, =
using
a set of interview questions. Both participants received the questions ahea=
d of
time. We re-assert that the first author knew the PIs of the program for two
years and had interacted closely with them, thus the interview was a way to
gather information formally rather than to gain an initial understanding of=
the
views of Cap and Kathleen. The transcripts from the interviews were 27
single-spaced, typed pages and the interpretations from the interviews were
member-checked formally and the findings negotiated with each individual. T=
he
interview questions were as follows:
Structured
Interview Questions for the MET Program PI’s
1)
What do you see as the differences between science inquiry and inquiry-based
science?
2)
Which of these do you think the MET program modeled?
3)
What goals or visions did you have for the program?
4)
If you went to the classroom of a teacher from the MET program, what would =
you
have to see to consider the program a “success?”
Teacher Conceptions Data
We used pre and post
program data from teacher questionnaires to ascertain teachers’
conceptions of inquiry. Teachers responded to these questionnaires pre prog=
ram
after teaching and videotaping either a ‘typical’ or
‘inquiry-based’ science lesson, which they were asked to review.
Post program, teachers responded to the questionnaires based upon the
inquiry-based lesson they taught. Data on each teacher averaged four
single-spaced, typed pages, for a total of 40 pages of data on teachersR=
17;
pre and post program questionnaire data on conceptions of inquiry. Using a =
Teacher/Learner Inquiry Continuum =
(TLIC)
rubric that Meg developed (Blanchard, 2006) based on Gallagher and
Parker’s (1995) Secondary Sci=
ence
Teachers Analysis Matrix, we coded teachers’ responses into the
following categories: inquiry; content; teacher’s actions; assessment;
student’s actions; and other factors. These categories organized all =
of
the teachers’ responses according to the degree they were
teacher-centered or learner-centered. [For a detailed description of this
process refer to Blanchard, 2006.] These are the questions:
Pre/Post
Program Questionnaire for Teacher Participants
1) How would you define an inquiry
investigation? (Please include the key characteristics.)
2) What aspects of your case study =
lesson
demonstrate the presence of, or absence of, the characteristics of an inqui=
ry
investigation?
3) What are the primary learning go=
als
for this investigation?
4) Why have you identified these as=
the
primary learning goals for this investigation?
5) Why is the use of inquiry an
appropriate or inappropriate approach for addressing your goals for these
students?
6) What aspects of your case study =
lesson
demonstrate your specific action(s) to facilitate the characteristics of
inquiry to meet your learning goals for these students?
7) Which aspects of the investigati=
on
were effective or ineffective in terms of reaching your goals with this gro=
up
of students? Why do you think so?
8) What would you do differently if=
you
had the opportunity to pursue this investigation in the future with a diffe=
rent
class?
This paper is a part of a much larger study (Blanchard, 2006);
therefore, we present data on teachers’ conceptions in summary form in
the Findings section. [For a detailed treatment of teachers’ concepti=
ons
of inquiry, see Blanchard & Muire, 2006.]
Of the 13 secondary science teachers who participated in the 2004 MET program, 10 of them participated in this study. In terms of teacher demographics, the teachers had a wide range of differences, including: age, years of experience, location and type of school, subjects taught, and cont= ent developed for their inquiry-based lesson. Teachers included three middle sc= hool teachers and seven high school teachers. Five of the teachers were African-American, and five were White.&nbs= p; Three of the teachers were male and seven were female. In terms of t= he content taught, there was one middle school special education course, one h= igh school food preparation course, and the others were traditional science con= tent courses including chemistry, physical science, integrated science (2), mari= ne science (2), and biology (2). Schools included rural (1), suburban (2), and urban (7). Teachers had from 4-20 years of experience teaching, with an ave= rage of 8 years. Lesson content ra= nged from factors influencing plant growth to effective bottle rocket designs to factors influencing wave action along shorelines. Pre program lessons by teachers la= sted one class period (with one exception, which lasted two days). Post program lessons lasted from 1= -11 days, with an averaged length of 4.5 days.= (One lesson lasted over a month, to allow plants to grow, but the students were engaged in the activity for approximately 8 of those days.) <= o:p>
We coded teacher data into the TLIC (Table 1), by first taking a phr=
ase
or sentence from a teacher’s questionnaire response and coding it into
the appropriate location in the rubric. =
Coding
was consistent for all of the teacher’s responses from pre and post
program questionnaires, with total numbers coded shown in each column.
Table 1.
Teacher/Learner Inquiry Continuum, with Data
Samples Coded.
(LC=3DLearner-Centered; TC=3DTeacher-Centere=
d)
(Blanchard, 2006).
=
<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> &nb=
sp; LC
=
Somewhat
LC Somewhat TC TC
|
Inquiry
Metaphors and Definitions |
Focus on student learning, hands-on
doing, exploration, observations, student-generated questions |
Students take lead on some aspects,
such as predictions and trying to answer questions. Student prior knowled=
ge
and curiosity a focus |
Teacher as facilitator, guided inqu=
iry |
What scientists do, removed from
students, fixed “scientific method” |
|
Content |
Connections to real world, relate i=
deas
with, connections to students’ lives, interactive |
Content involves some student inter=
action,
partially focused on processes, some relevance to students |
Content delivered by teacher, but s=
ome
student participation, responding to questions |
No examples or interconnections,
focused on factual content, delivery, no hand-on content, focus on state
standards/tests |
|
Teacher’s
Actions |
Teachers act in support of student
learning, actions |
Students encouraged to ask question=
s,
allow students to make mistakes, guide students in their thinking |
Address student questions in discus=
sion,
use questions, asks student questions on factual material, monitor studen=
ts |
Direct instruction, identify
misconceptions, monitor behaviour, focus students on content |
|
Assessment |
Multiple forms of assessment, some
formative; focus on investigation findings and presentations |
Students generate presentations with
teacher guidance, mix of factual and investigative knowledge accounting f=
or
grade |
Grades for “on task”
behavior and for answering teachers’ questions, focus is on matching
teachers’ knowledge |
Tests and quizzes over factual mate=
rial |
|
Students’
Actions |
Students actively participate in
learning, experimentation, creating questions, etc. |
Students assume more responsibility=
, make
predictions, gather data, learn content, use science skills |
Dialogue so teacher can gauge probl=
ems,
adjust thinking to teacher ideas |
Answer teacher questions, review fo=
r a
grade |
|
Other
Factor(s) mentioned by Teacher |
Time did not allow for more in-depth
student investigations, student interest promotes retention |
Students assumed more responsibility
for their learning |
Students thought it was social time,
lab took a lot of class time |
Not enough teacher control without
handouts |
The totals
were determined to compare across the group of 10 teachers to see how teach=
er-
or student-centered their responses were from pre to post program. We shared
all the teachers’ responses and totals, and we member checked during a
follow-up interview with each teacher.
Scientists’ Conceptions from the Literature
Harwood et al.’=
;s
(2002) study suggests ideas on how to categorize scientists’ concepti=
ons
of inquiry, by characteristics of investigations and of the investigator. W=
e supplement
this with recent articles on scientists’ conceptions of inquiry
(Southerland et al., 2003; Schwartz & Lederman, 2004, 2005).
Conceptions of Inquiry from a Biochemist=
A co-author of this
study, Penny, reflected on her experiences with both more traditional RET
programs and less traditional ones. As a biochemist and science educator, s=
he
brings a wealth of personal experiences that enhances the literature on
scientists’ conceptions of inquiry.
The Process of Coding the PI Data<=
u>
Our initial coding used Meg’s interview
questions as a framework for categorizing Cap and Kathleen’s response=
s.
What became clear, however, was that how the PIs’ responded did not
necessarily align with the questions Meg asked. In trying to understand what
Meg saw as a disconnect, she realized that she made Questions #1 and #2 bas=
ed
on a priori assumptions about
Cap’s and Kathleen’s conceptions of inquiry. Tobin refers to th=
is
as a set of expectations (2000, as cited in Harwood et al., 2002). For exam=
ple,
Meg’s first question made the assumption that the PI’s saw
scientific inquiry and inquiry-based science as inherently different
constructs. Indeed, an email Meg received prior to her interview with Kathl=
een
served as an early indication that this very issue might be problematic.
Kathleen’s pre-interview email said, “I think I need a little
clarification on your first question.” And Meg wrote back,
For Question #1: I am interested in knowing whether you think there=
are
differences between the science done by scientists and the science done in
science classrooms. Hopefully, that clears it up. In the literature, they c=
all
the classroom science "inquiry-based science," although some say =
that
"authentic" science is possible (scientist science), necessary. I
want to know where you and Cap shake out on this issue, what your intentions
were in terms of the MET program.
Secondly, although we
had wanted to analyze these data first, we actually coded them last, after =
we
had analyzed all of the teachers’ conceptions of inquiry and enactmen=
t of
inquiry. Therefore, when Meg re-read the interviews with Cap and Kathleen, =
it
was clear that there were differences between how they talked about inquiry=
and
the way the teachers did, particularly pre-program. For example, Kaitlin, a
high school integrated science teacher, wrote, “Inquiry is a method of
teaching science that involves activities that use problem solving,
observations and investigations on the part of the learner” (pre prog=
ram
questionnaire response to item #1).
Therefore, we coded =
all
the transcript responses that dealt with the overall topic (What is inquiry?
What are the PIs’ goals for the teachers?), and noted repeating ideas=
. We
clustered repeating ideas into ‘themes,’ “an implicit top=
ic
that organizes a group of repeating ideas” (Auerbach & Silverstei=
n,
2003, p. 38). We then compared the conceptions of the MET program PIs, the
teachers, scientists in the literature and a scientist on our paper (Penny)=
.
Findings
Scientists’ Concepti=
on
Data
In this section we
present the cases of Kathleen and Cap. Each includes the PI’s backgro=
und
and individual data supporting their individual conceptions of inquiry and
goals for the program. We summarize the findings and discuss how they
illuminate the PI’s values and goals. We then describe teacher
conceptions data, scientists’ conceptions from the literature, and
conceptions of one of the authors of the paper, Penny, as a biochemist and =
then
as a science educator.
Kathleen
Scientific thought processes in the
scientist’s laboratory (or in the field for those kinds of discipline=
s)
take an incredible amount of practice and an incredible amount of content
knowledge…which is a sophistication level that comes with experience.
Once you have this content knowledge and practice, then your practicing of
science will be done in a different way than is possible in the classroom. =
That
said, there are some fundamental skills and thought processes, I think, tha=
t we
can start teaching to K-12, kindergarten on up and you build these things j=
ust
like you do anything else in education.
Dr. Kathleen Bransford, Personal Interview
Program PI background
Dr. Kathleen Bransfo=
rd
is a tall, thin, energetic woman with dark blonde hair. She is very detail
oriented and focused, but also is quick to see humor in situations. As the
director of Science Connections, she heads up an array of science education
programs, which necessitates her “keeping lots of balls in the
air.” It is rare to go into her office and not see someone waiting to
talk with her, while she wraps up a phone call and simultaneously eyeballs a
new email that has arrived. When she is in her office, her door is rarely
closed, a testament to her interest in the interactive nature of her work a=
nd
her openness to handling whoever walks in the door, so to speak.
Kathleen’s Ph.D. is in neurobiology, and her science research includes
work on evolution of neural pathways for audition and on the neural correla=
tes
of taste and aging. After 14 years as director of Science Connections, Kath=
leen
manages all she has to do without breaking a sweat and with good humor.
Kathleen’s rol=
e in
the MET program was instrumental, in the sense that she and Cap developed t=
he
idea for the program, based on successful elements of a brief prior program=
he
had devised, and she primarily wrote the grant. Kathleen has an excellent t=
rack
record for receiving external funding, and balances meeting the needs of lo=
cal
science teachers and schools, yet justifying her existence to the CSU
administration. Kathleen manages to stay involved in the many programs she
directs while not micromanaging the day-to-day details. In Meg’s two
summers with the MET program, Kathleen was in attendance on three days of e=
ach
of the programs (which lasted for 25 days, each). One day she went along on=
a
boat ride; on another she and a program staff member conducted a GEMS
in-service program for the teachers; and on a third day, she listened to so=
me
of the student presentations of their final research project findings. Every
other day during the MET program was committed to other program obligations,
though Kathleen reports that she regularly consulted by the on-site MET sta=
ff
to solve issues or make adjustments to the program, as necessary.
Kathleen’s interview data.
Kathleen conceptuali=
zed
scientific inquiry as one general concept, with layers of sophistication
distinguishing between what she called a “young scientist” in t=
he
classroom versus a “scientist in the lab.” Although Kathleen ta=
lked
about classroom science using a variety of terms (e.g., demonstrations, gui=
ded
inquiry, cookbook labs), she did not delineate inquiry-based science from
scientific inquiry, specifically. Rather, her ideas differed primarily in t=
he
level of development of the person conducting the scientific inquiry, the l=
evel
of sophistication. Kathleen definitely thought of inquiry as a continuum of
experience involving one basic process. For instance, when commenting on how
teachers of the MET program may differ in their enactment of inquiry, Kathl=
een
said,
[In the MET program] [w]e are deali=
ng
with people who are already trained as teachers. Some of them already have =
some
background in science and some of them don’t, and you’ll see th=
is
reflected in the science that they do in the marine experiences program-- t=
here
are different levels of sophistication in the science that different ones of
them do. But, they all, despite their varying levels of sophistication, mod=
el
scientific inquiry. Some may be at a lower level of sophistication than oth=
ers,
but they all model scientific inquiry.
Aspects
of scientific inquiry, mentioned multiple times by Kathleen, included the
components of practice, content knowledge, skills, techniques, and thought
processes. The higher up you went educationally in science, the more
sophisticated all these components would be.
The experiments that you come up with=
[at
the graduate level] are going to be very much more sophisticated because th=
ey
have so much of a background of knowledge, some of which is original resear=
ch
that you’ve done yourself (so it is knowledge that only you hold) and=
so
the way you think about scientific inquiry is going to be so much more matu=
re
than the way you thought of it before graduate school, or before undergradu=
ate,
or before high school. But those are…I mean, it’s an education
process just like everything else. It all builds.
A distinction Kathle=
en
acknowledged between scientific inquiry and inquiry in schools was its purpose and focus. In the classroom, Kathleen thought a teacher who used
inquiry did it to reinforce concepts or learn techniques; whereas for a
scientist, although it was important that they knew the appropriate techniq=
ues,
these functioned as ways to collect data, with the ultimate goal of answeri=
ng
original research questions the scientist had generated.
[W]hen you’re in the lab, as a scientist, a lot of what you do=
is
follow protocol, which is very much cookbook science, but you come up
with the experiment that employs those protocols…[For example] I̵=
7;m
going to run gel electrophoresis on this set of samples because gel electro=
phoresis
will help me answer a particular question that I’m interested in about
these samples…when they do it in the high school lab it is almost alw=
ays
just for the skill of doing the gel electrophoresis…. So, that’s
what I mean by cookbook science. [Students] are following a protocol, but
they’re not coming up with the scientific reason for following that
protocol. The science that’s done in the classroom is meant to reinfo=
rce
something that is being taught rather than the thing that is being taught b=
eing
how to come up with a question of your own and then how to find the protoco=
ls
or techniques to help you answer that question. They don’t get to thi=
nk
about the reasons for why, the possible explanations, for that question and=
how
to test those possible explanations—that’s not what’s bei=
ng
taught in the classroom.
Kathleen also discus=
sed
differences in the type of guidance=
a
person received, as a scientist versus a student:
When you are a scientist, the guidance is coming from things you can
read, things you can talk about with your colleagues, but for the most part
there are not as many sources of guidance.
When Meg asked Kathl=
een
about her goals or visions for the program she said it was “to provide
that opportunity for [teachers] to really do something more…of an open
ended inquiry experience, that they had ownership of.” Kathleen
was thinking of the MET program as an experience that could push teachers
further along in their thinking what was possible in their classrooms, as
Kathleen clearly believed inquiry was possible at all levels, from kinderga=
rten
on up. She thought the MET program probably modeled inquiry “on the l=
evel
of undergraduate marine research type experiences,” with the caveat it
was “in cases where the undergraduates are given control of coming up
with the question and with some guidance figuring out a way to test the
question.”
When Meg asked her w=
hat
she would need to see in classrooms in order for her to consider the MET
program a ‘success,’ Kathleen felt it was necessary to know whe=
re
the teachers had started. She explained,
I’ve been involved in professio=
nal
development long enough to know that we can move some people a long way tow=
ard
new teaching practices and you can move others just a tiny way and some peo=
ple
aren’t going to move at all, unfortunately. That’s just the way
life is—human nature—so much goes into influencing each individ=
ual
teacher’s readiness for change.... if I see that somebody has moved j=
ust
a little ways, then I think we have been, in some measure, successful with
them.
Kathleen described a
growing sense that multiple RET experiences were necessary in order to real=
ly
make a difference in how the teacher was able to take the experiences and m=
ake
sense of them. Kathleen had recently attended a workshop in
I was really primed for your program because I had already had this =
one
experience and then I did your program and it [MET] also talked about the
transfer to the classroom and really got us thinking about the classroom mo=
re
than the other RET, which was to just more jump into somebody’s proje=
ct,
help them collect data and then write up a lesson plan.
Kathleen further shared her feeling=
that
the way Cap and Kathleen structured the MET program made it perhaps a more
worthwhile experience than those of other RETs.
One of the things that makes us a little bit more successful, I hope=
, is
that with this one RET experience, we give them two research
experiences, the science research and the research on the pedagogy of inqui=
ry.
Whereas the other teachers I was listening to up at the meeting were saying=
it
really wasn’t until I went on my second RET that I really started
thinking like, ah, I can do this and I can make this happen in the classroo=
m.
Kathleen’s PI values and goals<=
/span>.
Throughout her inter=
view
with Kathleen, Meg tried different ways to gain an understanding of how she
thought about inquiry and any possible differences between inquiry-based sc=
ience
and scientific inquiry. She asked Kathleen her opinion of an assertion by C=
arla
(one of the program’s staff scientists): “If we let everybody
really do inquiry, all their experiments would fail.” Kathleen thought
about this for a minute, then shook her head and explained,
=
I’m=
not
sure that that’s true, because I think that depending on what their
motivation was, they might be able to come up with successful work…[I=
]t
took me several years of graduate school before I was starting to get
successful results, but I had incredible motivation to do it. That’s =
what
I wanted to do and it just took a long time to learn how to do it at the le=
vel
of sophistication that it took to do, you know, the particular kinds of bra=
in
research that were done in my field.
In thinking about th=
is
response, Meg realized that Kathleen’s frame of reference for scienti=
fic
inquiry comes primarily from Kathleen’s own research experiences in
neurobiology. Certainly, she has gained an understanding of what is happeni=
ng in
science classrooms, both through her direct experiences in her Science
Connections program and her own children’s enrollment in local public
schools. Yet, Kathleen sifts her conceptions of inquiry through her lens as=
a
scientist. Everyone can do inquiry, even at less sophisticated levels, if t=
hey
have the curiosity and motivation. Therefore, the values of self-motivation,
hard work, independence, and perseverance are ever present in how Kathleen
discussed inquiry and how she carries out her own work. These values align
closely with the Rationalistic level of Beck and Cowan’s (1996) model,
which stresses individual accountability and achievement.
Unprompted by any
questions from Meg, Kathleen brought up the subject of some of her readings=
on
school reform:
[W]hen I first started reading a lot =
of
reform based science and constructivist thought, you know, that we should l=
et
children construct completely what they know about science—I thought,
well, yeah, in a perfect world where you had unlimited resources, unlimited
time, and perfect motivation on the part of the students, that would be the=
way
most of them would learn all science. That is the way science evolved, but =
we
don’t have any of those things in the classroom so we have to give
students a range of experiences along a continuum of inquiry so that they c=
an
progress…because it speeds them along with the process a bit and it d=
oes
help them to construct their own knowledge—each one, but in a differe=
nt
way.
In this passage,
Kathleen shows her practical side, which values efficiency yet is still
concerned about student learning. Clearly, she values students and
teachers’ learning for its own sake. This, and her concern for studen=
ts
and her understanding of the differences between people correspond to Beck =
and
Cowan’s “egalitarian” values level. Kathleen is an
interesting mix of these two values levels, because she holds her own conce=
rn
in check by the more “efficient” aspects of her make-up.
Cap
=
I believe=
that
the process of learning how to do science is a process and ultimately, if o=
ne
wishes to go that far, a professional researcher… In a lot of ways [t=
his
process] starts with some of the same first steps… So I don’t
really distinguish that level at step one. It’s not a baby step.
It’s the first step up a staircase and you can get off and start
inquiring on any floor you want.
Cap Baher, Personal interview
Program PI background
Dr. Henry
“Cap” Baher is a very tall, slim, white-bearded man with a laid=
back,
friendly demeanor who frequently is dressed in shorts, a T-shirt, and sanda=
ls.
He has been a professor at CSU for his entire 30+ year post-doctoral career.
Despite his low-key style, Cap received a named professorship at CSU, and is
internationally renowned for his work in the field of marine ecology. In his
career he has mentored 16 Ph.D. and 23 M.S. recipients, published 100
scientific papers, co-directed an award-winning marine-education program for
middle-school students, and won several university teaching awards (Dutrow,
2005).
Cap said he was lure=
d to
his graduate education with a desire to “be Jacques Cousteau,” =
and
during a MET program presentation of some of his science findings, showed
photographs of him working as a crewmember on Cousteau’s boat, The Calypso. Cap spent five years =
as the
director of CSU’s marine laboratory, living there for part of the tim=
e.
He loves the water and marine life, and this enthusiasm and interest is pre=
sent
in all of his conversations on the topic. He is a bit understated in his
achievements. During one of the early gatherings of MET teachers in the 2004
cohort he said,
What is science but to be able to
generate questions? I am a research scientist. I don’t really know mu=
ch
science. I mean, I’m not a science authority. I just know how to ask
questions.
Cap selected marine
ecology, instead of pursuing the high-school teaching career he was invited=
to
pursue as a college student (he has a minor in education). But he has a keen
interest in teaching and learning, which is responsible for several of his
educational ventures, including the MET program. What many research scienti=
sts
might constitute as a waste of their time, Cap relishes as making a differe=
nce
in the lives of school children. He is particularly interested in finding w=
ays
to capitalize on the natural curiosity all children, indeed all people, have
about the natural world.
Cap’s interview data.
Cap conceptualized
scientific inquiry as a process that was accessible to all people, starting
simply with being observant about the world around us. He found scientific
inquiry to be a “matter of experience, reinforcement and being massag=
ed
along a little bit.”
I think anybody of, we’ll call =
it,
normal intelligence can think scientifically. For some it comes easier than
others, which I notice, but more than anything else, it is being guided thr=
ough
that process early on and having it reinforced and it becomes self-reinforc=
ing
after a while. You gain confidence of, hey, I can figure this out and then =
you
can do it.
In Cap’s mind, inquiry included the compon=
ents
of curiosity, asking questions, proposing potential solutions, familiarity =
and
trust in the process, and a way of thinking. Occasionally inquiry used spec=
ial
equipment, techniques and methodologies, but those were not necessary.
Cap disputed the not=
ion
that doing inquiry at the less sophisticated levels was something less than
inquiry.
It’s like saying to a kid, who
finally figures out how to structure a sentence, and say now, you havenR=
17;t
really done writing. You haven’t really done prose. The kid is going =
to
use the same process 20 years later when he writes a Pulitzer Prize winning
report or novel, or whatever…. I view doing scientific process in the
classroom…[as] indeed something essential and a model of what will be
incorporated into much greater works later.
Cap
distinguished between beginning levels of inquiry and higher levels based u=
pon
the level of sophistication in the question posed and the hypothesis, and t=
he
level of content knowledge of the scientist.
Cap thought the MET
program represented a model of “what scientists do,” and he wan=
ted
the teachers to have “an experience doing scientific process from that
baseline level” so they could “experience for themselves the do=
ing
of science and gain confidence.” He imagined a teacher thinking,
I see what inquiry is. I see what the
process is. Now I’m going to go into my realm, and I’m going to
come up with something that I can present to my class as an inquiry exercise
going through those kinds of experiences.
Therefore,
the intention was that teachers would adapt this process of inquiry into
content that was appropriate for the age and content areas that they taught.
Cap was clear that he wanted the MET experience to be supportive, saying,
“It’s got to be positive. It can’t just be we did the
experiment and the results are in chaos.” That’s why he thought=
it
was important to have someone who knew the content to be there to assist the
teachers as they learned. This corroborates with evidence in the literature=
of
the usefulness of guidance when teachers attempt new practices in their sci=
ence
classrooms (Bencze & Hodson, 1999; Luft, 2001; Meadows, in review).
One of Cap’s
concerns was that, due to the more superficial ways in how some teachers had
learned their subjects, those teachers did not have deep content knowledge.=
He
thought that this content knowledge was essential to carrying out inquiry w=
ith
their students.
Cap’s PI values and goals.
During the interview,
Cap brought up the issue that it is important for people to understand scie=
nce
rather than just “accept the word of scientists who are, to them,
applying some magical kind of incantation to get the information.” In
this way, he is expressing values that correspond with Beck and Cowan’=
;s
Rationalistic level. Cap thinks if you teach people how to do inquiry, give
them the skills, they then can make informed choices about the world. Educa=
tion
gives people the tools to help themselves.
But Cap also said,
“science is so important to human existence.” He commented that
once you know how science operates you “recognize two things…the
power of it and…the shortcomings of it.” This level of scientif=
ic
understanding would enable people to “realize there is a process that
they can demonstrate to themselves…that will deliver—that really
works.” Cap’s obvious dedication to education and his desire to
instill scientific literacy for the betterment of society correspond to Beck
and Cowan’s Egalitarian value level.
But Cap is also
demonstrating that he has very sophisticated views of science, which is not
likely to be in concert with those of much different backgrounds and
experiences, such as teachers.
Cap also spent some =
time
discussing the need for a better model of inquiry at the university level,
pointing out that “everyone shares that college experience when teach=
ing.
[But] I think it has to root all the way down into the lower grades.”
Indeed, Cap could not think of a level of education in which it would not be
beneficial for students to have experiences with science inquiry.
Summary of Kathleen and Cap’s Data
Kathleen and Cap have
very similar views of inquiry. They both describe it to be a process to be
varied, not in essence, but in sophistication as the participants increase
their content knowledge, skills, and other areas of development. The program
PIs’ conception of inquiry along a continuum is consistent with the
National Science Education Standards (NRC, 2000).
=
Teachers’
Conceptions Data
We coded teacher pre and post questionnaire data by taking each stat=
ement
or sentence from a questionnaire and coding it as to the terms of the teach=
er,
“I give instructions” (TC) or the learner “the students
develop questions” (LC), or something in between, “I help the
students develop questions” (Somewhat Teacher-Centered, STC), or
“The students develop questions with my help” (Somewhat
Learner-Centered, SLC). Therefore, we tied the actual language the teachers
selected to use in the free responses of the questionnaire to the daily eve=
nts
and interactions in classrooms, which led to the original development of the
TLIC rubric (Blanchard, 2006). We coded the teacher statements literally in
terms of whether they situated the response in terms of themselves (teacher=
) or
the student (learner). For example, Table 2 shows the coding of Nate’s
pre program questionnaire responses (in regular type) and his post program
responses (in bold).
Table 2.
Questionnaire Coding on TLIC for Nate. Pre program
responses are in regular type. (Post program responses are in bold; LC=3DLearner-Centered; TC=3DTeacher-Centered).
=
&nb=
sp; LC
Somewhat LC
Somewhat TC &=
nbsp; &nb=
sp; TC
|
INQUIRY METAPHORS AND DEFINITIONS |
|
Prior knowledge, interests and natural curiosity of student Students are allowed to
choose topic; gently guided by instructor |
Teacher as guide |