EFFECTS OF DEVELOPMENT= AL INQUIRY TRAINING ON IN-SERVICE TEACHERS’ ABILITY TO IMPLEMENT INQUIRY TEACHING STRATEGIES

Miriam D. Munck, Eastern Oregon University

Donna Rainboth, Eastern Oregon University

Abstract

Science educators have long endorsed science inquiry, b= ut utilizing inquiry as a teaching strategy is often difficult for teachers. Breaking down inquiry into a developmental inquiry continuum, from the most teacher-directed to the most student-directed, provides stepping-stones for both students and teachers when teaching and learning through inquiry. This paper describes a study investigating the success of developmental inquiry = on increasing teachers’ attitudes about inquiry, their skill in implemen= ting inquiry and the frequency they use inquiry to teach science content.

Introduction

Science education reforms places inquiry at the cente= r of science learning. In the National Science Education Standards the National Research Council (1996) states, "Inquiry into authentic quest= ions generated from student experiences is the central strategy for teaching science" (p. 31). National standards support inquiry teaching through emphases of the investigative nature of science and the importance of stude= nts' active engagement in science’s ways of knowing and doing (NRC, 1996; AAAS, 1993). It follows that learning science concepts happens throu= gh active concept attainment utilizing investigations relevant to real life activities (Hurd, 2000; NRC, 1996; National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), 1991; Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1989). Learning the fundamental nat= ure of science through inquiry-based learning provides a better grasp of the concepts and processes of science compared to other strategies (NRC, 1996).=

Background

The Sta= ndards are clear about the value of inquiry pedagogy in teaching science, but teachers decide what actually happens in classrooms. Teaching with inquiry has been described as difficult to enact because of the required teacher skill and understanding of inquiry pedagogy. In order to teach inquiry effectively, teachers need to have an understanding of the inquiry process, the content knowledge involved in the inquiry and how to facilitate students as they investigate (Furtak, 2006, Johnson 2004).

In an effo= rt to clarify inquiry and make the process easier for teachers and students to master, inquiry has been broken into a developmental continuum with teacher directed inquiry on one extreme and student directed, open-ended, inquiry on the other. At the teacher directed end of the continuum students are provid= ed information and given questions they are expected to investigate. At the opposite end of the inquiry continuum is learning where student ask questio= ns of their choice and interest. They research their questions, design and con= duct experiments with the teacher acting only as a facilitator (NWREL, 2005). It= is the process of moving students from teacher centered instruction to open-en= ded inquiry that is difficult for teachers, by breaking down the inquiry contin= uum to smaller and smaller bits both teachers and students are provided stepping-stones for utilizing open inquiry. This developmental model moves students through structured and guided inquiry to open-ended inquiry.

With an understanding of the general principles of inquiry, teachers can begin with structured inquiry, the most teacher-centered, where the teacher provides an experience that stimulates interest and leads to an inquiry question. The experience is carefully selected and controlled by the teacher and the teac= her dictates the questions. To investigate the question, the teacher solicits i= deas about how a process or experiment could be conducted and then provides the route. Structured inquiry supports the students through the inquiry process= yet leaves the analysis of data and information and summary open, so that the students collect the data and make meaning of the information. The inquiry = is planned in such a way that students have an opportunity to complete the specific inquiry by recording data and by making summary statements. The inquiry practice is limited to these two aspects only (Jaeger, 2005).

Guided, like structured inquiry, sets up the context of the problem and directs stu= dent to the problem or question to be investigated, but does not dictate the met= hod. The teacher guides the inquiry by providing materials that direct the stude= nt toward a success but the student makes choices about how they will conduct = the experiment. Teacher provides important scaffolding to students as they crea= te their own inquiry plans. Students conduct the investigation, collect and analyze data as they did in structured inquiry. Guided inquiry is a step cl= oser to giving students full control over all aspects of the inquiry process. Scaffolding students from structured to guided inquiry may take several cyc= les within different contexts in order to assure student familiarity and confid= ence with inquiry (Jaeger, 2005).

Open inquiry, or student-initiated inquiry is at the far end of the continuum. Students develop their own questio= ns, generated by a teacher designed context, or experience that leads students = to investigate topics related to the teacher’s content learning goals (NWREL, 2005). During the investigation process, teachers allow students to realize and solve most of their technical and conceptual problems. Students may have to re-visit their question, their investigation procedure or even their conceptual design, be= fore the inquiry process is complete (Jaeger, 2005).

Structured, guided and open-inquiry each contains all of the elements of inquiry. Experiences and prior knowledge generate student questions; new information informs the investigation design process; students conduct investigations a= nd collect data, and make meaning of the data and information generated by the investigation. At any point i= n the process, students may revisit or revise a previous step. =

Inquiry Cycle

The goal the developmental inquiry process is for students to ultimately take charge of their own learning and form the questions they find compelling, conduct the background research, plan a study, and conduct the exploration. In final stage of inquiry on the continuum students are fully equipped and confident that they have the information, data, and confidant that they have the skill to condu= ct their inquiry.

The purpose of this developmental inquiry process is to supply teachers with mo= dels for inquiry where they can incrementally give students more and more responsibility for their own inquiry. It provides students with ample pract= ice with inquiry in small pieces and provides the structure for students to be success learner through inquiry (Jaeger, 2005).

This study investigates the effectiveness of the developmental inquiry for teach= ers to learn to inquiry process, to gain skill and confidence in utilizing inqu= iry, and to utilize inquiry in their classrooms. The following three research questions were identified:

·= ; = ·= ; =

·= ; =

&= nbsp;

Method

&= nbsp; The developmental inquiry workshop consisted of ten one day-long sessions. The first session, one day, was held in April. Five consecutive sessions were h= eld in August. Two sessions in September, and two sessions in October completed= the workshop. During the workshop sessions participants engaged in science inqu= iry as learners. The sessions utilized the developmental inquiry model and began with several structured inquiry sessions, then several guided inquiry sessi= ons, and finally, open inquiry. Each inquiry was fully ‘debriefed’ w= ith an analysis of the inquiry model, the science content and the related Natio= nal Science Education Standard.

Participants. Fifty teachers, grades three through eight were study participants. The participants voluntarily chose to attend the developmental inquiry workshop. The workshop had some enticements for attending: stipend, room and board, a= nd promise of inquiry materials and curriculum. It can also be considered that choosing to attend indicates an interest and desire to teach inquiry-based science.

&= nbsp; Pre-Workshop. Prior to the first workshop session, participants were mailed the following questions about their use of inquiry to teach science content, and their understanding of inquiry pedagogy:

=
1.      How do you define inquiry?

=
2.      Have students completed an inquiry work sample in your classroom to=
 meet the Oregon state req=
uirements?  Please briefly des=
cribe how you implemented this (these) lesson(s) (when did you do the lesso=
n, how many lessons did you do, did the students attempt the work samples m=
ore than once, etc).

=
3.      What reasons, other than meeting the state requirements, do you hav=
e for doing inquiry in your classroom?

=
4.      How do you introduce students to inquiry at the beginning of the ye=
ar? Are your inquiry lessons structured differently from the beginning of t=
he year to the end of the year? How?

=
5.      Describe an inquiry lesson you have taught.  What did you do?&nb=
sp; What did the students do? =

Pre-workshop questions we= re collected at the first workshop session.

Post-Workshop. Participants responded to survey questions according to a 4 to 1 scale, 4 b= eing the highest:

How well prepared are you to teach:

Structured Inquiry
Guided Inquiry
Open Inquiry

How well prepared are you to teach science content through inquiry strateg= ies?
In general, how well prepared are you to scaffold inquiry learning?

Questions 4 and 5 were open response:

How often do you plan to implement inquiry strategies (times per year)?

5.&n= bsp; How has my view of inquiry changed?

= Data Analysis. Mean scores for questions with numerical ratings were calcula= ted. Total mean scores were compared to the rating scale, 4 highest to 1 lowest. A mean score for ques= tion 4, the number of times participants planned to implement inquiry strategies, was determined. Narrative responses to: How has my view of inquiry changed? were analyzed for each participant’s understanding of the development= al inquiry model, ability to utilize developmental inquiry, and attitudes towa= rd inquiry teaching..

Results

An analysis of the pre-workshop questions indicated teachers understood the basics about inqui= ry. All stated that in inquiry learning students engaged in hands-on investigat= ions to answer questions, along with data collecting and drawing conclusions. All reported using inquiry at least four times a year. Many reported using inquiry-teaching strategies every day! The researchers were somewhat skepti= cal of the accuracy of this self-reported data. After observing the participant= s as they engaged in inquiry process and discussing inquiry teaching, the researchers determined that the participant teachers had misconceptions abo= ut inquiry and lacked the inquiry knowledge and strategies stated in their pre= -workshop narratives. Since, the pre-workshop questions did not accurately report participant use and understanding of inquiry, the pre-workshop questions we= re not included in the data.

Questions = relating to how well prepared teachers believed they are to teach inquiry, to teach science content through inquiry and to scaffold inquiry addressed the resea= rch questions. The post workshop questions addressed the research questions:

·= ; = ·= ; =

·= ; =

When answering the question= s, participants rated their preparation on a scale of four to one, four being high, and one low. The mean score for each question was greater than 3, with structured and guided inquiry scores greater than 3.8. The following chart summarizes the results.

= ;

Post Workshop Survey Questions Mean Scores (4 to 1 scale)

1. How well prepared are you to teach:
a. Structured Inquiry	3.89
b. Guided Inquiry	3.83
c. Open Inquiry	3.25
2. How well prepared are you to teach science through inquiry strategies?	3.44
3. In general, how well prepared are you to scaffold= inquiry learning?	3.83

Table 1

Narrative responses to the question, “H= ow has my view of inquiry changed?” addressed all the research questions. Participants’ responses indicated an increased understanding the developmental inquiry process, as well as their excitement and anticipation= of utilizing inquiry strategies. The following are participant responses:

• = I feel like I get each piece [of inquiry] an= d my students are going to get a far better science education this year …<= /p>

• = [I am] relieved and excited to discover that= an inquiry can be broken down and parts focused on.

• = Inquiry can be found anywhere and does not h= ave a time limit – news to me! Yeah!

• = I understand the progression from structured inquiry to open-ended.

• = “Poking-around” is not only O.K,= it is necessary.

• = My view of scientific inquiry has changed fr= om using fun inquiry lessons as fillers to using inquiry in a well-developed scientific unit.

• = I realized after the first session how cluel= ess I was about inquiry. I looked at it as a pain in the rear, one more thing I= had to do for the state for a work sample.&nbs= p; Now I am so excited about leading my students on these adventures. I feel it is easily do-able. I was trying to teach to a form for the work sam= ple, now I see how to let them explore first and build baby steps up to the final written project. And that it can be fun – a get to not a have to.

• = I have learned how to make sure my inquiry lessons are teaching content not just process.

• = Before I took this class Inquiry was an unmanageable beast. Now I am equipped with the tools to slay the beast, or perhaps keep it under control.

• = It [this workshop] has not only helped me understand inquiry but has given me a positive outlook on doing it with my students.

The research ques= tion, “How does developmental inquiry facilitate teachers’ implementa= tion of inquiry?” is addressed by the post-workshop question:
How often do you plan to implement inquiry strategies (time/year)? The mean score of participant response was 5.61. Indicating teachers plan to utilize inquiry about every 6 weeks.

Conclusions

&= nbsp; Teaching science with inquiry teaching strategies is, at the same time, difficult and worthwhile. Teachers’ difficulties in planning and managing inquiry h= ave held back the implementation of science inquiry. Teacher skill, confidence = and willingness to be risk-takers are all critical to success science inquiry implementation.

This study finds = that learning inquiry through the developmental inquiry process increases teachers’ inquiry teaching skills and attitudes toward utilizing inquiry-teaching strategies. After learning developmental inquiry, teachers believed they would be able to design and implement structured and guided inquiry, and to a lesser extent, open inquiry. They were enthusiastic about using inquiry to teach science concepts. They believed they were well prepa= red to teach science through inquiry. However, the frequency that teacher participants indicated they plan to use inquiry, every 6 weeks, indicates t= hey haven’t fully realized the value of inquiry in teaching science conce= pts or recognized that inquiry facilitates the teaching and learning of science. Further study should be undertaken to determine if additional training can increase the utilization of inquiry to teach science concepts as a normal course of events. Additional study is planned to investigate the actual, not planned, use of inquiry, the depth of content taught through inquiry and student outcomes on standards based assessments.

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), (1995). Blue prints f= or reform: Project 2061. Wash= ington, DC: AAAS.

Furtak, E. M. (2006). The Problem with Answers: An Exploration of Guided Scientific Inquiry Teaching. Science Education, 90(3), 453-467.

Hurd, P. (2000). Transforming middle school science education. Teachers College Press.

Jaeger, M. (2005). Teaching Standards Through Inquiry: A Developmental Approach.= Eastern Oregon University Press. La Grande, OR.

Johnson, K. = (2004). The Role of Field Paleontology on Teachers’ Attitudes

Toward Inq= uiry Science. Novations Journal, 21.

National Research Council (= 1996). National Science Education Standards. National

Academy Press. Washington, DC.

National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). (1991). Scope, sequence and coordination project. Wash= ington, DC: The Association Press.<= /p>

Northwest Regional Education Laboratory (NWREL) (2005). Is there only one way to do science inquiry? retrieved, March 15, 2006 from: http://www.nwrel.org/msec/science_inq/answers.html

Rutherford, F. J. & Ahlgren, A. (1989). Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: AAAS.