Moving along the continuum of classroom inquiry:
A case study of a second grade teacher
Meredith Park
Sandra Abell,
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine how a second grade teacher perceived and taught an inquiry-based science curriculum. More specifically we wanted to stu= dy her role in scaffolding her students through the scientific process of inquiry.= Using a phenomenological research framework and a case study method we found that the teacher described her vision of using an inquiry-based approach to teaching science as a tool for motivating her students to take more ownership in their learning of science. She employed a 5E (Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, and Evaluate) instructional learning cycle that emphasi= zed the need for students to use the evidence they collected to develop respons= es to their questions. In addition, with the use of vignettes we illustrate how her teaching role changed over the course o= f a unit of instruction from a guided to a more open inquiry approach. As a point of comparison, this shi= ft in her instructional approach is matched to the National Science Education Standards features of classroom inquiry. This study demonstrates how an inquiry-based science curriculum can provide educators = with an effective model for designing and implementing a coherent science curriculum.
Although, = many educators are quickly coming to the realization that science can no longer = be ignored in the elementary curriculum there is still a lack of science being taught in the elementary classroom (Raizen & Michelsohn, 1994; Roden, 2= 000; Sears, 2000). Some may blame = the emphasis placed on mathematics and literacy when No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was introduced in 2000, but there has been evidence throughout elementary science research that this was a concern before NCLB was even introduced (Roden, 2000).
The resear= ch literature on classroom teachers’ beliefs’ is one area that has tried to find out why there may be such a lack of elementary science. From our review of the research we= found two recurring themes described: 1) external constraints teachers face inhib= it putting their reform-based beliefs about inquiry science into practice (Abe= ll & Roth, 1992; Beck, Czerniak, & Lumpe, 2000; Pringle & Carrier Martin, 2005; Roden, 2000), 2) personal constraints such as a lack of visio= n or their own traditional science experiences hinder elementary teachers from implementing inquiry-based practices in their science teaching (Bryan 2003; Fetters, Czerniak, Fish, & Shawberry, 2002; Laplante, 1997; Levitt, 200= 1; Tobin, Briscoe, & Holman, 1990). This case study focuses on the latter theme of personal constraints = with a description of one teacher’s vision and strategy for regularly implementing an inquiry-based second grade science curriculum.
Purpose
and Research Questions
In additio= n to teacher constraints, Crawford (2000) asserted there is a need for more classroom-based research studies. This study addressed this need because it focused on an experienced elementary classroom teacher. Also, her experiences as a teacher leader at both the school and district level w= ith improving elementary science supported the notion that this case is an ideal example of the type of classroom-based teaching strategies Crawford explain= ed the science education community needs to give more attention to.
Therefore,= the purpose of this study was to understand how a second grade teacher moved be= yond the personal constraints described by some teachers in the literature, and instead wanted to know how she perceived and taught an inquiry-based science curriculum. More specifically= we wanted to study her role in scaffolding her students through the scientific= process of inquiry. The following res= earch questions guided our research.
Conceptual
Framework
&= nbsp; Two aspects of the research literature influenced our analysis of the data and interpretation of the findings. The first was Schwab’s (1962) view of inquiry in science teaching and learning, and the second is the discrepancy often f= ound between elementary teachers’ views and practice of inquiry-based scie= nce (i.e., personal constraints). The following section provides an overview of both of these topics.
Inquiry
&= nbsp; Following the 1957 launch of the former Soviet Union’s earth-orbiting satellite= Sputnik, the U.S. government began= to financially support the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) initiativ= es for investigating ways to bring renewed vitality to school science programs (DeBoer, 1991). Joseph Schwab= led the way in this reform in science education with his declaration for classr= oom inquiry. Schwab explained that “scientists no longer conceived science as stable truths to be verifi= ed; they were viewing it as principles for inquiry, conceptual structures revis= able in response to new evidence” (in Bybee, 2000, p. 27). Therefore, “the constitutive components of scientific knowledge – principles, data, interpretations – as well as the constituted conclusions, must become the materials regularly taught and learned in science courses (Schwab, 1962, p. 65). However, Schwab’s view of in= quiry did not stop there. He also described enquiry[1] as a= way of teaching classroom science. He asserted that “the teaching of science as enquiry” requires one= to think of inquiry as both “a process of teaching and learning” (= p. 65).
Nearly
thirty-five years later, the National Research Council [NRC] (1996) publish=
ed
the National Science Education =
Standards [Standards], which incorporated much of Schwab’s idea of
science as inquiry emphasizing inquiry as both a concept and a process to
learning science (NRC, 1996, 2000).
With the introduction of the Standards,
inquiry was soon identified as the foundation for reform-based teaching=
in
science education. However, f=
or
students to practice this kind of activity, teachers needed to help students
develop an understanding about both scientific inquiry and the abilities
necessary to do scientific inquiry (NRC, 1996, 2000). For this to occur, teachers would =
need
to consider the essential features of classroom inquiry (NRC, 2000). These features are described as: <=
/p>
·
Learners are engaged by scientifically orien=
ted
questions. ·
Learners give priority to evidence, which al=
lows
them to develop and evaluate explanations that address scientifically orien=
ted
questions. ·
Learners formulate explanations from evidenc=
e to
address scientifically oriented questions. ·
Learners evaluate their explanations in ligh=
t of
alternative explanations, particularly those reflecting scientific
understanding. ·
Learners communicate and justify their propo=
sed
explanations. (NRC, 2000, p. 25) Within the context of this =
study,
the essential features of classroom inquiry and the processes of scientific
inquiry guide my view of how to design inquiry-based science instruction.
Teacher=
s’
Views of Personal Constraints Many eleme=
ntary
teachers rely on district-provided science curricula to guide their science
teaching. They do not feel
comfortable or confident enough in their own abilities to plan and teach
science from an inquiry-based perspective (Bryan, 2003; Fetters et al.
2002). As Tobin et al. (1990)
explained, even if a teacher shows a commitment to change his/her science
teaching from a traditional to an inquiry-based approach, it does not
necessarily mean s/he has a vision of what that ought to look like. Moreover, if a teacher develops a =
vision
for reform-based science teaching, s/he may not be able to personalize the
vision in order to successfully implement it in the classroom. Tobin et a=
l.
(1990) studied how one elementary teacher’s determination to teach
science and mathematics with a more reform-minded approach helped her to
overcome the constraints imposed by an inappropriate curriculum. This teacher attributed her succes=
ses to
achieving her vision of science teaching because of the “support she
received from parents, school administrators, colleagues within the school,=
and
at a later time, personnel with district and state educational agencies (To=
bin
et al.). However, as Raizen a=
nd
Michelsohn (1994) noted, this amount of support is not the norm for element=
ary
science teaching. Similar to=
Tobin
et al (1990), Levitt (2001) explained that even though “teachers [may]
adopt individual pieces of the standards, they may not yet embrace the whole
vision” (p. 19).
Levitt’s study examined 16 elementary teachers from two school
districts who were participating in a local systemic initiative for science
education reform. Overall, Le=
vitt
found varying gaps between the teachers’ beliefs and the principles of
reform, suggesting as did Tobin et al. that elementary teachers were beginn=
ing
to move towards a reform-minded orientation of teaching science, but they r=
equired
support with transforming these beliefs into practice. Fetters et=
al.
(2002) examined teachers’ views of science within an inquiry-based PD
program. They noted that when=
the
teachers were immersed in reform-based inquiry science activities and curri=
cula,
they became anxious. Fetters =
et al.
explained that the teachers had never experienced learning science from an
inquiry perspective for themselves and in turn they were not confident in t=
heir
ability to teach science in this way to their own students. Fetters et al. discussed the need =
for
professional development to help practicing teachers redefine their roles as
both learners and teachers of inquiry-based science for only then would they
feel successful in implementing a reform-based curriculum of science as
inquiry. Fetters et=
al.
(2002) found the elementary teachers in their study had similar views to the
two teachers Laplante (1997) studied. Laplante studied two 1st gra=
de
teachers who taught science in a French-immersion program. He found that the teachers viewed
themselves as consumers of knowledge because of their own experiences with
science as students. The teac=
hers
relayed this image to their students.
Laplante explained that the teachers in his study “Put scienti=
sts
on a pedestal and consider them to be gifted with cognitive abilities they =
and
their students do not possess. They
view science more as a body of knowledge than as a process of inquiry”
(p. 290). The issue of langua=
ge
development because of the students’ ages and the fact that it was a
French-immersion school was recognized possible external constraints for th=
ese
teachers to overcome. However,
Laplante found that students’ limited language abilities were not as =
constraining
as the teachers’ “nested epistemology” of teaching scienc=
e as
a body of knowledge to be consumed rather than inquired about. Findings f=
rom King, Shum=
ow, and
Lietz (2001) reported a similar finding in their study of urban elementary
school teachers. They explain=
ed,
“There was a disconnection between what the teachers said they did (or
are trying to do) vs. what observers saw them doing in the classroom”=
(p.
106). This finding appeared t=
o be a
theme across the literature – teachers described their view of teachi=
ng
science as inquiry-based (e.g., using words like facilitate and hands-on), =
but
when it came to teaching science they could not transfer their views into
practice. While ther=
e is a significant
amount of research describing the disconnect between elementary teachers vi=
ews
or beliefs about science and there practice, this study focuses on what
elementary science teaching can look like when there not these kinds of
personal constraints. Methods This case study employed a phenomenolog=
ical
approach (Patton, 2002) to examine how one second grade teacher perceived
teaching elementary science in a manner similar to how Schwab (1962) viewed
science should be taught. Als=
o,
with comparing the teacher’s views to her actual teaching we were abl=
e to
examine how she enacted an inquiry-based approach similar to her views of w=
hat
constitutes scientific inquiry. At the time of this study, Brenda (pseu=
donym)
was in her 13th year of teaching overall with the majority of th=
ese
years split between second and third grades. Brenda provided a “telling
case” (Mitchell, 1984) for this study because her interest in improvi=
ng
her science teaching occurred after she entered the classroom. She did not have a background in
science, but much of her professional development over the past 13 years
focused on science and mathematics.
In addition, her qualifications as a National Board certified teacher
and her work for the local school district as a member of the elementary
science curriculum selection committee illustrates her unique characteristi=
cs
as a case study from which we can learn. The first author collected data through=
a
series of classroom observations over a 6-week period and two interviews
– one at the beginning and one at the end of the observations. Collecting data in this 3-step pha=
se
allowed triangulation of the findings.&nbs=
p;
The curriculum Brenda used to guide most of her science teach=
ing
was called Changes and is part =
of the
second grade Science and Technology=
for
Children ( The first interview provided background
information about Brenda’s teaching experiences and her curriculum
design, the classroom observations allowed us to see how her design was
implemented, and the follow-up interview gave us the opportunity to confer =
with
Brenda about what we saw and validate the patterns that emerged in her
practice. The observation data was analyzed first=
to
look for themes or patterns of instruction that were comparable to the NSES=
Essential Features of Classroom Inquir=
y
(NRC, 2000). The interviews w=
ere then
used to as supporting evidence to describe both Brenda’s views and
approach to teaching inquiry-based science. A
Window into Brenda’s Teaching &=
nbsp; Vignette
1: A Fizzing Experience &=
nbsp; It
is Tuesday, &=
nbsp; The
activity for this science class is a continuation from the previous
lesson. The students are to
continue working with working with an Alka-Seltzer tablet (a solid) and wat=
er
(a liquid) and record their properties before and after they mixing them
together. Brenda instructs the
students to follow the directions and complete the questions on the back of=
the
handout from the last class. &=
nbsp; After
receiving their handouts, the students move from the carpet to their desks =
to
work in pairs. They continue
recording their observations of the tablet and water separately. During this time period, Brenda mo=
ves
from table to table asking the students questions such as, “What words
are you using to describe your solid?” One
student responds with, “It stinks and it is rough.” &=
nbsp; In
an attempt to get the student to be more descriptive with her observations
Brenda follows up by asking this student, “What do you mean by it
stinks?” &=
nbsp; Another
student holds the tablet right up to her nose to smell and Brenda reminds t=
he
student about wafting to be safe.
Brenda explains to the student that scientists do not hold things
directly to their noses because some substances can be harmful and you can =
not
always be sure if what you are smelling is safe or not. “It is a good habit to learn=
to
waft when smelling anything.”
The student seems to have difficulty understanding how to waft so Br=
enda
models this action for her and the student copies. &=
nbsp; After
a few more minutes of observing, the students share from their desks what t=
hey
wrote for describing the tablet.
Students use words such as: sticky, rough, like a strong mustard sme=
ll,
looks fuzzy through the lens. &=
nbsp; Next,
Brenda calls the students back to the carpet to review how to observe and
record characteristics of the liquid.
She also explains to them that the hardest task for them, which is a=
lso
the most important, is to not put the solid (the tablet) into the liquid un=
til
she tells them. The students =
return
to their desks to continue completing question #2 on the handout, which
involves observing the liquid and writing about its characteristics. &=
nbsp; Once
again, Brenda walks from table to table asking the students clarification t=
ypes
of questions. After a few min=
utes
of observing the water, the students to share the descriptive words they us=
ed
to describe the liquid. After=
a few
students share the characteristics they have written down, Brenda proceeds =
with
the next step in the task. She
says, “Now is the time when we are going to observe a change.”<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>
&= nbsp; As soon as the tablet makes contact with the water, the students begin to “Ooh and ahh”, and the following conversation occurs:
= &= nbsp; One student says, “It looks like Sprite.”
= &= nbsp; Another says, “It’s bursting out.”
= &= nbsp; A third student says, “It’s fizzing.”
= &= nbsp; Brenda asks this third student, “What is fizzing?”
= &= nbsp; The student replies, “The tablet in the water.”
= &= nbsp; A few seconds later, a student shouts out to the rest of the class, “It’s gone.” Brenda follows-up asking, “What is gone?”
= &= nbsp; Collectively, several students reply, “The Alka-Seltzer.”
&= nbsp; Brenda takes this opportunity to begin directing the students’ observations = and thinking to the notion of changes and having them explain what they think is going on. She starts by askin= g, “Is there any evidence of the Alka-Seltzer left? A student replies, “Yeah, th= ere are little white dots on the bottom of the glass, and I stuck my finger in = so there are some on my finger, too.”&n= bsp; Brenda then asks the students to consider how the Alka-Seltzer chang= ed when it came into contact with the water.&= nbsp; They would be discussing this idea together once everyone cleaned up= and met back on the carpet.
&= nbsp; With their handouts filled in, the students come to the carpet and Brenda initia= tes discussion, “What changed?”&nb= sp; This gave several students the opportunity to share what they had observed changing during the investigation.
&= nbsp; Brenda summarized the conversation with the following questions:
· So you would agree then that the solid chang= ed?
· You would agree then that the water also changed?
· So are you saying that the solid dissolved in the liquid?
&= nbsp; To push the students’ thinking a little further Brenda asks, “What= do you think would happen if we took an Alka-Seltzer and dropped just a small drop of w= ater on it? She had demonstrated t= his earlier in the class when the students were making their separate observati= ons about the tablet and the liquid. She walked from table group to table group doing this demonstration. A few students respond that she showed this to them and that from what they saw when she d= id this, as well as what they saw their own tablet do when hit the water, the Alka-Seltzer tablet fizzes when water touches it.
&= nbsp; “So,” Brenda continues, “considering what you know now, what do you think m= ight happen to the tablet if you were to use a different kind of liquid – = not water?” She encourages = the students to turn knee-to-knee to discuss with a friend what they think would happen if a different liquid was used.&nbs= p; The students share their thoughts about this scenario. “So I was wondering if I sho= uld bring in different liquids tomorrow for us to try with the Alka-Seltzer,= 221; Brenda muses. Most of the stu= dents respond enthusiastically, “YEAH!” They take the last few minutes of = class to sketch out a plan for this extension activity.
Brenda con= cludes the lesson with two statements for the students to ponder: 1) keep noticing changes around you, and 2) look at how solids and liquids change when they = come together.
Vignett=
e 2:
Filtering Students’ Understanding
Three week= s later Brenda’s class is nearing the end of the Changes unit. Bre= nda begins today’s science lesson with reviewing the chromatography investigation from the previous class.&nbs= p; Four students share their stories of trying the chromatography techn= ique at home over the weekend. One student used coffee filters with markers, pencils, and crayons. Another student used coffee filter= s with different colors of markers. A third student used paper towels and tried dropping the water with a straw, = but said it was too messy because it was hard to control the water from coming = out when he lifted his finger. The final student used a folded paper towel into a small square and polka dotte= d it with various colors.
=
After
this sharing time, Brenda initiates a whole class conversation about possib=
le
“I-change” (or independent) variables that the students could
change from the previous investigation to study in other investigations.
= After the whole class discussion, Brenda tells the students to return their table groups to decide on which “I-change” variable they want to study. Before they leave for = their tables, she reviews once more what an “I-change” variable means (i.e., only one item/variable changes).&nb= sp; As the groups of students begin planning for their own chromatography investigation, Brenda moves from table to table asking them to consider what materials they would need to do their test.
=
After
a few minutes of group planning, Brenda calls the students back to the carp=
et
to give them an opportunity to share with others and receive feedback on th=
eir
plans. She asks the students =
to
report on what “I-change” variable they plan to test and what v=
ariables
they are not changing in order to ensure they are conducting a fair test.
= Next Brenda discusses with the students different ways to record the evidence th= ey will collect in their journals. This is a task that the students are familiar with. However, in previous lessons Brend= a had guided most of the data collection ideas.&= nbsp; This time she asks the students for their ideas and records them on = the class whiteboard for them to refer back to once they are at their tables working in their groups.
= After a few minutes Brenda brings the conversation to a close and dismisses the students back to their tables. As the students start talking in their groups about their ideas and refining a= ny changes to the design of their investigation, Brenda passes out their journals. She then asks the students to take the next few minutes to record all their plans in their jo= urnals making sure to state their testing question, the materials they are going to need, the “I-Change” (independent) and the “keep the same” (dependent variables in their test, and their prediction of what they think will happen based on their experience from what they learned with the previous whole class chromatography investigation. She outlines these headings: quest= ion, materials, I-change and stay the same, and prediction on the board as a reminder for the students. Sh= e also includes this list: collected data, conclusions, and further questions. As she writes, she reminds the stu= dents to think about their conversation on the carpet and to decide as a group how they want to record the information they gather.
She conclu=
des the
lesson by explaining that they will begin the next science class with these
investigations so everyone has enough time to record the data they need to
answer their questions. They =
will
also take a little more time to share results and how those results help to
answer their inquiry question. The
students return to their desks to cleanup.=
Brenda gathers their journals and begins scanning a few of them. The students put their materials t=
o the
side of the room so they can easily retrieve them the next time they meet f=
or
science.
Findings and
Discussion
We organized our discussion of the find=
ings
around the three research questions that guided our study. Each of these is briefly described=
below
and is elaborated on with specific examples from our data.
Brenda’s Vision and Implementatio=
n of
Inquiry
We found from our analysis of comparing
Brenda’s views of inquiry-based science teaching to her instruction t=
hat
there was no disconnect. This=
is
unlike the findings in
Brenda described the use of the scienti= fic inquiry approach as a tool for motivating her students to take more ownersh= ip in their learning of science. She explained that science provided the foundation for planning her curriculum. The abilities to = do and the understanding of scientific inquiry (NRC, 2000) were at the core of Brenda’s views about what students’ need to learn in elementary science. She explained,
I think [inquiry] really is looking at the kids’ questions in conjunction with what we are doing and then setting up a quest= ion that could be solved; especially in the beginning with the kids…I rea= lly think that on a second grade level it is looking at the questions the kids = are answering and trying to set-up some kind of fair test where they know about= the “I – change variable” or the independent variable, and the dependent variables and they build an experiment with help – with sup= port from me – to create their experiment and then share out. I mean I think that is really impo= rtant part that they have a chance not only to conduct the experiment but to share out and find out what other questions they still have, and what things they noticed. I think they really = feel like scientists as they do that. (Brenda, Interview 2)
The
process skills of scientific inquiry and the learning cycle approach acted =
as
tools for her to plan her science teaching. To assist with her planning, she employed a type of 5E (Engage, Explo=
re,
Explain, Elaborate, and Evaluate) instructional learning cycle (Trowbridge,
Bybee, & Carlson-Powell, 2004) that emphasized the need for students to=
use
the evidence they collected to develop responses to their questions.
&=
nbsp; At
the beginning of the 6-week science unit the question the students were to
investigate for each activity was generated by Brenda. As they progressed through the unit
however, the students’ questions became the driving force for the
investigations. In order to s=
tay on
track with meeting the content objectives for the unit there were times when
the class had several side investigations going on demonstrating the need f=
or
multiple data sources to develop claims and further their conceptual
understanding.
To illustr= ate how Brenda employed the use of a 5E model to inquiry we selected portions of the Alka-Seltzer lesson described in the Vignette 1 and organized them accordin= g to the 5E headings (see Table 1) to indicate where Brenda transitioned her instruction through the 5E phases. <= /span>We did not include the Evaluate phase in this chart because this phase was threaded throughout the lesson. In this lesson, Brenda focused on formative assessment strategies such as questioning the students as they were performing the tasks. The information she received from = the students’ responses indicated when the students needed reminding abou= t a technique (e.g., how to properly waft), or questioning students’ descriptions of what they observed to make sure they were providing enough = details (e.g., what is meant by “stinky” or “fizzing”).
Table 1.
Identifying Four Phases of the 5E Model in Brenda&#=
8217;s
Alka-Seltzer Lesson
|
5E Phase<= /p> |
Recognizi= ng the Beginning of Each Phase |
|
Engage |
Brenda starts today’= ;s lesson with a demonstration of how to use a hand lens safely and effectiv= ely for observing. She points o= ut the two types of magnification lenses, how to hold the lens to use each type = of magnification, and how to move the lens to examine or move the object to = examine. Some students practice with the = hand lens in pairs while others alone. During this practice time, Brenda moves arou= nd to different kids talking to them about what they were examining and what they are noticing about the item they are observing through the hand lens. … (see p. 9) |
|
Explore |
The activity for this sci= ence class is a continuation from the previous lesson. The students are to continue wor= king with working with an Alka-Seltzer tablet (a solid) and water (a liquid) a= nd record their properties before and after they mix them together. …<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> (see p. 9) |
|
Explain |
Brenda takes this opportu= nity to begin directing the students’ observations and thinking to the noti= on of changes and having them explain what they think is going on. She starts by asking, “Is = there any evidence of the Alka-Seltzer left? ... (see p. 11) |
|
Elaborate |
To push the students thin= king a little further Brenda asks, “What do you think would happen then if= we took an Alka-Seltzer and dr= opped just a small drop of water on it? ... (see p. 11) |
In
the final portion of this lesson, Brenda posed questions to the students to
engage them in thinking about what they observed in that lesson and to cons=
ider
other possible investigations about mixing solids and liquids. In this lesson, Brenda proposed the
elaboration idea with her line of questioning. Over the course of the Changes unit and students graduall=
y took
more responsibility in designing the extension investigations. Only when this transition in owner=
ship
occurred did the teachers assess the students’ summative understandin=
g of
the science concepts and procedures for designing a fair test (e.g., requir=
ing
the students to record all the steps of their investigation in their journa=
ls
– refer to the chromatography lesson in Vignette 2).
A Shift in Brenda’s Teaching Role=
Brenda viewed her role as multi-faceted when teaching from an inquiry perspective. When first intro= ducing their students to inquiry, the teachers modeled the process for their stude= nts. Modeling involved her asking the question to investigate, providing students with guidance in how to oragani= ze and record the information in their journals, and walking the students thro= ugh the procedures of the investigation. During the first few weeks that Author One observed of the Changes unit she noticed Brenda do= ing this type of modeling for her students (refer to Vignette 1 as an example).
We noticed=
over
the course of the 6-weeks that eventually the students grew comfortable with
asking follow-up investigation questions and began collaborating with Brend=
a to
design the procedures for their investigations. Thus, Brenda’s role in teach=
ing
science shifted from that of modeling an inquiry approach to supporting the
students to design and implement their own inquiry-based investigations.
&= nbsp; Together, Vignettes 1 & 2 illustrate the difference between Brenda’s approa= ch of guiding the students through an inquiry process to facilitating them to develop their own open inquiry later. The Alka-Seltzer lesson (Vignette 1) models the guided inquiry appro= ach and the chromatography lesson (Vignette 2) demonstrates a more open inquiry approach.
According = to Brenda, the objective of Alka-Seltzer lesson was for the teacher to show the students how to setup a fair testing situation. This required a teacher-directed emphasis on the difference between independent and dependent variables. She guided her students through th= is inquiry in the sense that she provided the question they would investigate,= and a handout that walked them through the steps of the investigation. In addition, throughout the explor= ation portion of the lesson, she probed students’ thinking with questions s= uch as, “What words are you using to describe your solid?” and “What do you mean by it stinks?” These kinds of questions pus= hed the students to be more descriptive in their data collection efforts.
&=
nbsp; Towards
the end of the lesson, Brenda guided the students’ thinking about the
changes that occurred when the Alka-Seltzer came into contact with water.
&= nbsp; The final indication that Brenda guided her students’ inquiry experience = in this lesson was at the end when she asked the students to talk with each ot= her about what they thought would happen to the tablet if a different kind liqu= id was used. Ending the lesson i= n this way allowed Brenda to model for her students how an inquiry-based investiga= tion naturally facilitates the development of more questions. This Alka-Seltzer lesson demonstra= ted Brenda’s use of a guided approach to classroom inquiry.
Vignette
2 illustrates an open inquiry approach, in which case the teacher takes on a
more collaborative role in designing the investigation with her students.
According
to Brenda, this shift in responsibility was supported by her use of an
inquiry-based approach to teaching science. In particular, we observed that it=
was
her explicit use of a learning
cycle instructional model, similar to the 5E model (Trowbridge et al., 2004=
),
that supported her students development of asking questions and using evide=
nce
as justifications for their explanations.&=
nbsp;
The learning cycle has been noted in the research as “an effec=
tive
instructional strategy with many advantages over more traditional approache=
s in
terms of students attitudes, motivation, process learning and concept
learning” (Abraham, 2003, p. 520).&n=
bsp;
Brenda’s example of how to shift from showing her students how=
to
investigate in science to facilitating their learning through a more open
process of inquiry provides additional support for Abraham’s claim.
Matching Brenda’s Vision to the S=
tandards
Abraham and Renner (1986) and Renner et al. (1988) concluded that the order of a learning cycle matters in the sense that students need to experience a phenomenon before generating an explanation for the phenomenon. Brenda followed a similar explore before explain procedure w= hen teaching science. It was this process that provided a consistent structure for the students learning and helped to design guided inquiry experiences. The lessons described in Vignettes= 1 and 2 illustrate this approach further.
The purpose of this section of our paper is to examine how Brenda’s visio= n of inquiry, the change in her teaching role, and her scaffolding technique fit with the essential features of clas= sroom inquiry described in the Inquiry Standards (NRC, 2000) (see Appendix).<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Therefore, we matched selected por= tions of the vignettes with the variation of inquiry we felt it best represented = in order to show how Brenda’s instructional role changed from one lesson= to the other.
In comparing the data examples listed in Tables 2 and 3, with the essential features of inquiry selected from table from the Standards (see Appendix), we found that throughout both the Alka-Seltzer and the Chromatography lesson that Brenda’s instructional role moved along the inquiry continuum.&nb= sp; Her teaching did have her students following down one column of features, but was scattered around the table. However, in Vignette 1 she moved b= etween the two far right columns of the features table (see Appendix) and in the Vignette 2 her instruction moved through the two left columns more. The main difference between her teachings of the two lessons was the amount of guidance she gave in the Alka-Seltzer lesson (Vignette 1) with getting things set-up compared to the Chromatography lesson (Vignette2).
One can see from examining Table 2= that Brenda’s use of a more guided approach to inquiry early on in the Changes unit scaffolded her studen= ts learning of how to work through an inquiry process of investigation. Whereas, in Table 3, Brenda’= s instruction follows a more open inquiry approach as her students are required to take m= ore responsibility in setting up their own investigations (e.g., define their o= wn questions and methods for exploring). One consistent
Table 2
Matching Brenda̵=
7;s
instruction from Vignette 1 to features of classroom inquiry (NRC, 2000).
|
Essential Features |
Variation of Inquiry |
Data Example |
|
Learner engages in scientifically oriented questions |
Learner engages in question provided by teacher, materials, or other source |
&midd= ot; = Brenda reviews the five senses and how to safely use them to observe and notice things in science… = · The activity for this science class is a continuation from the previous lesson.&n= bsp; The students are to continue working with working with an Alka-Sel= tzer tablet (a solid) and water (a liquid) and record their properties before = and after they mixing them together. <= /span> |
|
Learner gives priority to evidence in responding to questions |
Learner directed to collect certain data |
<= ![if !supportLists]>· Brenda instructs the students to follow th= e directions and complete the questions on the back of the handout from the last class= . |
|
Learner formulate explanations from evidence |
Learner given possible ways to use evidence to formulate explanation= . |
· Brenda walks from table to table asking the students clarification types of questions. |
|
Learner connects explanations to scientific knowledge |
Learner given possible connections |
· Brenda directs the students’ observations and thinking to the notion of changes and haves them explain what they think is going on. She asks, “Is there any evidence of the Alka-Seltzer left? A student replies, “Yeah, = there are little white dots on the bottom of the glass, and I stuck my finger i= n so there are some on my finger, too.”= Brenda then asks the students to consider how the Alka-Seltzer cha= nged when it came into contact with the water. |
|
Learner communicates and justifies explanations |
Learner provided broad guidelines to use sharpen communication |
· Brenda summarized the conversation by aski= ng: So= you would agree then that the solid changed? You would agree then that the water also changed? So= are you saying that the solid dissolved in the liquid? |
element of Brenda’s teaching thro= ughout both vignettes was her guidance in helping her students develop explanations based on evidence and how to best communicate their findings to others.
Table 3.
Matching Brenda’s instruction from Vign=
ette
2 to features of classroom inquiry (NRC, 2000).
|
Essential Features |
Learner’s Variation of Inquiry |
Data Example |
|
Learner engages in scientifically oriented questions |
Learner poses a question |
· The students elaborate on the chromatograp= hy investigation by developing their own question and considering how they w= ill collect evidence. = · As the groups of students begin planning f= or their own chromatography investigation, Brenda moves from table to table asking them what materials they would need. |
|
Learner gives priority to evidence in responding to questions |
Learner determines what constitutes evidence and collects it |
· Next Brenda discusses with the students different ways to record the evidence they will collect in their journals. This is a task th= at the students are familiar with. In previous lessons Brenda guided most of the data collection ideas. This time she asks the students = for their ideas and records them on the class whiteboard for them to refer ba= ck to once they are at their tables working in their groups. |
|
Learner formulate explanations from evidence |
? |
· Da= ta not available from this particular vignette as the lesson carried onto another day. The continuation of th= is activity the next day focused on the students finishing data collection a= nd a student-directed whole class discussion of what they found, any problems = they have encountered in answeri= ng their investigation question because of their methods, and new questions = they had. |
|
Learner connects explanations to scientific knowledge |
|
· Brenda explained to the students that scientists do lots of planning, thinking and predicting before doing an investigation, just as they are doing. (Brenda connects students’ process to scientists’ process for investigating.) |
|
Learner communicates and justifies explanations |
Learner coached in development |
·
Students were talking in their groups about
their ideas, refining the design of their investigation, and Brenda passed
out their journals. She ask=
s the
students to record all their plans in their journals making sure to state
their testing question, the materials they are going to need, the
“I-Change” (independent) and the “keep the same”
(dependent variables in their test), and their prediction of what they th=
ink
will happen based on what they learned with the previous whole class
investigation. |
She did this through strategic questioning techniques that focused her
students thinking to consider specific pieces of evidence they were
gathering. She also emphasize=
d the
need for her students to record their data in an organized manner to share =
more
easily with others.
&=
nbsp; Looking
across Brenda’s teaching, it is evident that without personal constra=
ints
the kind of “enquiry” that Schwab (1962) described is
possible. However, for this to
occur teachers need to first become familiar with the variations in classro=
om
inquiry that are possible and techniques for scaffolding their students lea=
rning
along the inquiry continuum. =
We
believe that sharing explicit cases of practice, like Brenda’s, provi=
des
the initial step towards meeting this need.
Conclusion and Implications
Science at the elementary level plays a
critical role in preparing students to think and question about science as =
both
a body of knowledge and process of interconnected concepts. To assist with this approach the National Science Education Standards <=
/i>[NSES] (NRC, 1996) explains that classro=
om
teachers need to employ an inquiry-based approach to teaching science that
provides students with the opportunities to observe, analyze, and synthesize
about scientific phenomena in ways similar to scientists. This approach requires teachers to=
move
away from a the traditional show and tell approach to teaching science towa=
rds
modeling a metacognitive approach that will encourage students to change or
modify their conceptual understanding (Bransford and Donovan, 2005).
The
significance of this study is for classroom teachers to realize that is it =
is
possible to practice what you believe.&nbs=
p;
Based on our findings of Brenda’s approach we can say with
confidence that she does indeed model a metacognitive approach her students=
as
they moved from observing someone else’s process to demonstrating the=
ir
own conceptual process. Unfortunately, we can not say for sure =
why
Brenda’s views and practice about inquiry align while other researche=
rs (Bryan
2003; Fetters, Czerniak, Fish, & Shawberry, 2002; Laplante, 1997; Levit=
t,
2001; Tobin, Briscoe, & Holman, 1990) have found that more often than not there is a disconnect. Perhaps it is Brenda’s dedic=
ation
to professional development or her work with other teachers with similar vi=
ews. These are speculations on our part=
and
something we realize now we should have followed up on more thoroughly in o=
ur
final interview with Brenda.
Regardless of the reason, it is interesting to note that with an
experienced teacher, such as Brenda, that her views and practice of inquiry=
-based
science do parallel one another as opposed to the preservice teacher descri=
bed
in King et al.’s study (2001).
This identifies the need for explicit discussion recognition of teac=
hers
views and practice of inquiry-based science because it is not until they be=
come
aware of the disconnect that they can begin to make change. Therefore, it is science teacher
educators’ responsibility to provide professional development experie=
nces
that show the kind of inquiry approaches described in the Standards (NRC, 2000), as well as
provide opportunities for teachers to demonstrate their developing
practice in a collegial environment.
Implications
Understanding how teachers make this ki=
nd of
shift in their practice of teaching science depicts the movement from
behaviorism to social constructivism (Duit and Treagust, 2003). Our study provides a significant
contribution to the science education community because it illustrates the
scaffolding techniques an elementary teacher needs to employ to develop a
social constructivist, inquiry-based foundation for students to learn scien=
ce.
The findings from this study should enc=
ourage
science teacher educators to think and question how they design professional
development for inservice teachers, as well teacher preparation courses.
Because our study was focused on an
experienced classroom teacher, the implications from this study have the
greatest impact on science teacher educators who work with inservice teache=
rs
in a professional development context.&nbs=
p;
However, we feel that sharing Brenda’s techniques with preserv=
ice
teachers is also beneficial as she serves as a model for future elementary
teachers of science.
References
Abell, S. K., & Roth, M= . (1992). Constraints to teaching elementary science: A case study of a
science en= thusiast student teacher. Science Education, 76, 581-595.
Abraham, M. R. (2003). The learning cycle approach as a strategy for instruction in science. In
B. Fraser =
& K.
G. Tobin (Eds.) International Handb=
ook of
Science Education (pp. 513-524).
Beck, J., Czerniak, C. M., = & Lumpe, A. T. (2000). An exploratory study of teachers&#= 8217; beliefs
regarding = the implementation of constructivism in their classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11, 323-343.
Bransford, J. D., & Don=
ovan, M.
S. (Eds.) (2005). How
Students Learn: Science in the
Classroom.
Bryan, L. A. (2003). Nestedness of beliefs: Examining a prospective elementary teacher’s belief
system abo= ut science teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teachin= g, 40, 835-868.
Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: = New roles for science teachers. <= /p>
Journal of Research in Science Teachin= g, 37, 916-937.
Duit, R., &a= mp; Treagust, D. F. (2003). Learning in science – From behaviourism towards social
constructivism and beyond. In B. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Ed=
s.) International Handbook of Science Educ=
ation (pp.
3-25).
Fetters, M. K., Czerniak, C= . M., Fish, L., & Shawberry, J. (2002). Confronting, challenging, and
changing teachers’ beliefs: Implications from a local systemic change professi= onal development program. Journal of Science Teacher Education, = 13, 101-130.
King, K., Shumow, L., &= Lietz, S. (2001). Science education in and urban elementary
school: Ca= se studies of teacher beliefs and classroom practices. Science Education, 85, 89-110.
Laplante, B. (1997). Teachers’ beliefs and instructional strategies in science: Pushing analysis
further.
Levitt, K. E. (2001). An analysis of elementary teachers’ beliefs regarding the teaching and
learning of science. Science Education, 86, 1-22.
Mitchell, J. C. (1984). Producing data: Case studies. In R. F. Ellen (Ed.), Ethnographic
research: A guide to general conduct.
National Research Council.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> (1996). National Science Education
Standards.
National Research Council.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A
guide for =
teaching
and learning.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: = Sage Publications.
Pringle, R. M., & Carri= er Martin, S. (2005). The potential impacts of upcoming high-stakes
testing on= the teaching of science in elementary classrooms. Research in Science Education, 35, 347-361.
Raizen, S. A., & Michel=
sohn, A.
M. (Eds.) (1994). The future of science in elementary sc=
hools:
Educating prospective teachers.
Roden, J. (2000). Primary science: A second-class co= re subject? In J. Sears and P. Sorensen
(Eds.), Issues in Science Teaching (pp.
31-40).
Schwab, J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry= . In The teaching of science (pp. 1-103).
Tobin, K., Br= iscoe, C., & Holman, J. R. (1990). Overcoming constraints to effective elementary
&= nbsp; science teaching. Science Education, 74, 409-420.
Trowbridge, L. W., Bybee, R=
. W.,
& Carlson-Powell, J.
(2004). Teaching secondary school
science: Strategies for developing
scientific literacy (8th ed.).
Appendix
Table 2-6. <= /p>
Essential
Features of Classroom Inquiry and Their Variations (NRC, 2000)
|
Essential Featur=
e |
Variations |
||||
|
Learner engages in
scientifically oriented questions |
Learner poses a que=
stion |
Learner selects amo=
ng
questions, poses new questions |
Learner sharpens or
clarifies question provided by teacher, materials, or other source |
Learner engages in =
question
provided by teacher, materials, or other source |
|
|
Learner gives prior=
ity to evidence
in responding to questions |
Learner determines =
what
constitutes evidence and collects it |
Learner directed to=
collect
certain data |
Learner given data =
and
asked to analyze |