Intro:

A Teacher’s Tale of Implementing Inqui= ry

Mary E. Sande, University of Minnesota

Anne L. Kern, University of Minnesota

Gillian H. Ro= ehrig, University of Minnesota

Abstract

Recent s= cience education reforms focus on teachers creating a classroom environment that revolves around inquiry (AAAS, 1993; NRC. 1996). However, inquiry is not be= ing implemented in droves (Weiss et al, 1994).= This study describes the experiences of a teacher attempting to chan= ge her practices toward a more reform-based orientation. Cooperative grouping, inquiry acti= vities and experiments, class reporting of group findings, evidence for claims and consensus building, were emphasized in the reform-based curriculum. Students exhibited a greater sense= of self-confidence, readily supplied evidence for claims and displayed an increased urgency for and a higher level of discourse during class activiti= es and experiments. The teacher = in the study found herself struggling to implement reform-based instruction in her classroom. It was difficult f= or the teacher to change her teaching style, translate the terms of inquiry into classroom practice as well as managing the day-to-day classroom activities. In addition, not = only did the teacher have to teach herself about reform-based curriculum; howeve= r, she had to teach her students, parents and colleagues. This study is a narrative of the barriers and pathways to implementing a reform-based curriculum.

A Teache= r’s Tale of Implementing Inquiry

The rhetoric in today’s science education reform arena draws on inquiry a= s a key element in improving learning in science for all students. Science teac= hers in the U.S. have been charged with creating an inquiry environment that combines the knowledge of science disciplines with the characteristics of i= nquiry as practiced by scientists. The National Science Education Standards (NSES) (National Research Council [NRC], 1996) describe scientific inquiry as “the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and pro= pose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work” (p. 23). = In addition, the standards state that inquiry in science should be addressed in two ways: 1) as content, what students should understand about scientific inquiry, and 2) as the abilities necessary to do scientific inquiry (NRC, 2= 000, p. 18).

Despite decades in which science educators have dedicated considerable efforts to helping teachers implement scientific inquiry in their classrooms, research= ers report the occurrence of inquiry activities in classrooms are limited at be= st (Furtak, 2006; Reiff, 2002; Roehrig & Luft, 2004; Wallace & Kang, 2004; Welch, Klopfer, Aikenhea= d, & Robinson, 1991; Weiss, 2006). They suggest a multitude of factors influence the lack of implementation of inquiry lessons such as teachers= 217; lack of time (Loughran 1994), limited understanding of the nature of science (Brickhouse 1990; Duschl 1987; Tobin & McRobbie, 1996), access to reform-based curriculum materials (Adams and Krockover 1997; Beck, Czerniak= and Lumpe 2000; Powell & Anderson, 2002;Veenman 1984), inability to connect discipline knowledge to pedagogy (Adams and Krockover 1997, Shulman 1986), = and even a lack of a clear understanding or vision of inquiry (Roehrig & Lu= ft, 2004) .

This paper reports on the efforts, constraints, and support for one experienced science teacher’s attempt, with the support of two colleagues, to ena= ct an inquiry focused curriculum in her ninth grade physical science high scho= ol class. Mary, the experience t= eacher in the study, wanted to try to change her teaching style because she was dissatisfied with her students’ abilities to conduct experiments, use critical thinking skills and understand the underlying chemistry concepts behind symbolic representations. Mary was also dissatisfied with her teaching of chemistry as a body = of knowledge instead of a process or way of knowing about the world. Thus, the opportunity to implement reform-based pedagogy into her classroom with a support system from the university was seen as fortuitous.

Background Literature

The NSES (NRC, 1996) strongly suggest that scientific inquiry is the process through which a scientific literate society may be created and that our classrooms need to include scientific inquiry. Historically, inquiry has had a significant role in school science programs (DeBoer, 1991). Before 1900, mo= st educators viewed science primarily as a body of knowledge that students wer= e to learn through direct instruction. A critic of this perspective was John Dew= ey, in his 1909 address to the American Association for the Advancement of Scie= nce (AAAS), contended that science teaching relied too much on “the accumulation of ready-made material” and advocated learning science as “a method of thinking, an attitude of mind, after the pattern of which mental habits are to be made” (Dewey, 1909, p. 1). From this perspect= ive, science is more than a body of knowledge to be learned; Dewey believed there was a process or method of science to be learned. Today, according to the N= ational Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996), scientific inquiry refers to the w= ays scientists engage in scientific endeavors. In addition to developing an und= erstanding the foundational skills of doing science, inquiry also refers “to the activities of students in which they develop knowledge and understanding of scientific ideas” (p. 23). While scientific knowledge does refer to facts, concepts, principles, laws, theories, and models, NSES states that although individuals develop understanding in a number of ways, they achiev= e a robust and comprehensive understanding of science through integration of a complex structure of many types of knowledge, such as ideas about science content and how to explain scientific phenomena.

Studies ha= ve shown that a conceptual understanding of chemistry concepts is inadequately achie= ved through algorithmic problem-solving skills; many students who do not unders= tand chemical concepts can still successfully solve mathematical problems in chemistry (Bunce & Gabel, 2002; Nurrenbern & Pickering, 1987; Sawrey, 1990). = Three types of chemical representations have been discussed in the literature as being critical to developing a conceptual understanding of chemistry topics: macroscopic (observable properties and processes), microscopic (arrangement= and motions of particles), and symbolic (chemical and mathematical notations and equations) (Gabel, 1998).

The traditional approach to teaching chemistry typically emphasizes the use of chemical and mathematical symbols and equations (symbolic representations) rather than microscopic representations, such as particulate diagrams that stress the interaction of atoms, molecules, and ions (Johnstone, 1991). In a traditional chemistry class, the teacher explains and solves mathematical chemistry problems and then assigns additional problems to students for homework. Traditional wisdom has been if the student can successfully compl= ete math problems dealing with a particular chemical concept, the student understands the underlying concepts.

&= nbsp; However, a chemistry teacher who wants to emphasize conceptual understanding approac= h recognizes the difficulty that students have learning chemistry by the symbolic approa= ch. In place of focusing on the algorit= hms and heuristics for solving problems, the teacher would include microscopic = and macroscopic representations to encourage students to develop an in-depth conceptual understanding. Interactive demonstrations and inquiry laboratory activities provide macroscopic approaches to teaching chemistry that introd= uce students to chemical behavior they can observe in the physical world. Thus,= in place of traditional symbolic instructional strategies such as lecture and drill and practice, more inquiry-based instructional strategies in chemistr= y would include student-centered discussions and opportunities for meaning making, opportunities for cooperative group learning, a focus on consensus building= and providing evidence for claims.

= ; There are number of studies tat e= xplore student learning in inquiry settings with select populations of students, s= uch as advanced and special needs students or English language learners (Crawfo= rd, 2000; McGinnis, 2000; Roth & Barton, 2004). However, there are fewer studies that describe student learning outcomes in science classrooms that include the spectrum of students in a typical suburban high school. The goa= l of this study was to explore the experience of an experienced teacher working = with “typical” students in a well funded and resource rich suburban = high school. We attempt to track the changes she made in teaching strategies for= 9^th grade physical science from a traditional approach to a focus reform strate= gies as represented by the use of symbolic representations and inquiry-based approaches.

The Study

The teacher telling this tale is Mary. Mary was the experienced teacher who was changing her traditional teaching style to a more inquiry-based approach. It is Mary’s voice that you = will hear throughout the rest of this paper.

Conte= xt

This study= took place in a public high school in a middle-class suburban setting. The high = school had approximately 2000 students who are predominately white, 89%, with 12% minority students. Approximat= ely 3% of the student population received free and reduced lunch. The course studied was 9^{th
grade physical science. The f=
irst
semester of this course was focused on physics and the second semester on
chemistry. The reform-chemist=
ry
curriculum was implemented in the second semester chemistry course. Class periods were 55 minutes long=
. In the district studied, physical
science in the 9^th grade is required for every student to
graduate.}

At the tim= e of the study, there were 17 sections of 9^th grade physical science. I taught 5 sections of physical sc= ience with one preparation period. = There were four other teachers who taught the remaining sections. Two females, one with a Masters degree in geology and 15 years high school experience and the other with a biology degree and a license to teach high school physical science. Two males, one with 5^th--9^th grade general science license which allowed him to teach physical science at a high school and the other with a biology degree, a physical science license and 20 years experience. I have ten years of teaching experience with 9^th gra= ders and a degree in chemistry.

Through my experiences working with my colleagues, the science department at the high school studied is primarily traditional in teaching style and content. The eleven teachers that make up the department believe in rigorous content and laboratory experiences that will prepare students for science in college. According to school records, approximately 85% of the students graduating from the high school do attend four-year colleges and universities. Because of this, the members of the science department are dedicated= to strong science experiences for the students. The impetus for most department decisions is “covering” what students will need to succeed in college chemistry, physics and biology.

Department= members put in long hours preparing experiments and grading assignments. They are d= edicated teachers. To illustrate, the = 9^th grade team meets outside of the school day weekly to discuss improvements to experiments and assignments so that students “get it” when comp= ared to last year’s student performance.&= nbsp; The 9^th grade team also meets weekly to discuss the use of equipment that is shared between the five teachers.

Study Design

Chemistry = concepts were presented to the my classes through interactive activities or experime= nts that required students to construct their own knowledge and/or definitions = of chemistry concepts. Activities and/or experiments were fairly open-ended so that students could engage with the chemistry concepts regardless of prior knowledge and ability. Students always worked with at lea= st one partner for every activity and/or experiment. Pairs or groups routinely reported= to the class their findings from activities and/or experiments. I rarely told students what they s= hould have found or what the answers were to specific questions. A number of activities required students within their groups to come to a consensus. The individual group consensus was= then presented to the class where upon a class consensus was built. Discussion a= nd debate between students was encouraged and scientific evidence was demanded for ev= ery claim.

At the sem= ester break, delineating the physics semester from the chemistry semester, studen= ts are rescheduled and shuffled between teachers. I had about one-third returning st= udents and about two-thirds of the students new to my chemistry classes. Thus, there was a period of learni= ng about the new students as well as the new students learning about me. For some students, their previous semester was a very structured course.&nbs= p; Students were expected to listen attentively to lecture, take notes = and individually complete assignments. Discussion was not encouraged in some of my colleagues’ classrooms. Thus, not only di= d new students have to learn how to operate in a new teacher’s classroom, t= hey had to learn how to operate in a completely different environment which expected social construction of knowledge.= Some students literally had not spoken about science in a science classroom for a semester.

Planning For Change=

At the beg= inning of the study, it was very important for the 9^th grade team that = my students experienced the same laboratory experiments and the same common assessments= . This meant that laboratory activities needed to cover the same concepts as cover= ed by the cookbook activities used in other sections, yet the purpose of our s= tudy was to engage students through inquiry-based experiments and activities to construct their own knowledge. Consequently, the inquiry-based experiments = were modified existing experiments within the curriculum.

For exampl= e, an inquiry-based experiment that we modified from the existing school curricul= um was an iodine clock experiment. The standard curriculum included an iodine clock reaction lab designed for students to investigate the impact of concentrati= on of reactants on the rate of the chemical reaction. This was a two-day traditional, co= okbook lab where students were told how to conduct the experiment and how to analy= ze their data. At the end of the= two days, the students turned in the analysis questions provided at the end of = the lab worksheet. Most students guessed at what their results would look like = and some students actually changed their results to match their idea of what sh= ould happen. Whereas, the experime= nt my students required two days for students to conduct and one day of classroom discussion to help students answer the analysis questions at the end of the lab. Students investigated how the concentration of chemicals and temperatu= re impact the rate of a reaction. Students were randomly assigned to groups of three or four. Students were given either concent= ration or temperature to investigate along with a list of chemicals. Within the gr= oup, students wrote a group procedure to investigate the variable they had been assigned. Once I had signed o= ff on the procedure as safe and measurable, students entered the lab area and collected data. At the end of= the two days, each group reported their results to the class with a poster presentation. Thus, students conducted their own experiments, made their own conclusions and reported their findings to the class. After the poster presentations, st= udents within their groups developed their own “rules” for how concentration and temperature impact the rates of reactions.

While some= of the experiments were modified from the existing curriculum, some experiments we= re new to the curriculum. For ex= ample, my students completed completed a small unit on endothermic and exothermic reactions. We chose this topic because students in the other classes had literally been given definitions = of endothermic and exothermic reactions during the last unit. While my students had not investig= ated endothermic and exothermic reactions directly, they had noticed that some reactions produced heat and others absorbed heat. The activity for my students was to create the best hot pack from the materials that I provided. Students developed their own stand= ards for the “best” hot pack through a class discussion. Students we= re allowed to pick groups of three to four.&n= bsp; A variety of materials that students were familiar with were availab= le for experimentation. Some mat= erials were yeast, copper filings, wood shavings, sand, perlite, vinegar and baking soda. Students were encourage= d to conduct controlled experiments to determine which combination of materials would produce heat. In additi= on to making the hot pack, students needed to determine how to measure the heat produced. At the end of four = days, students presented their findings to the class and a “winner” w= as selected.

The depart= mental-wide, common end-of-unit and end-of-semester assessments were multiple choice, true/false and matching and occurred about every three to four weeks. The questions on the assessments w= ere taken from tests that the five 9^th grade teachers had used in previous years and from textbook materials. The five teachers discussed test questions making corrections for terminology or answer choices to ensure co= mmon coverage. For example, if one= of the teachers did not use the term “nucleus” when teaching a uni= t on atomic structure, the term “nucleus” would be changed to “= ;the center of the atom.” Common assessments were given to all 9^{th
grade students on the same day and would last one class period. Thus, I would have to make sure th=
at my
students were prepared to take the common assessment at the same time as the
other twelve sections were scheduled to take the test.}

In an atte= mpt to include test questions that were reform-based, we added to the common assessments a supplemental assessment that included a variety of written questions. We included drawin= gs of particles and asked students to explain their drawings. We provided students with physical= and chemical properties of a “newly discovered element” and asked w= here they would place the “new element” on the periodic table and why. We asked students to dra= w how the electrons of atoms would come together when bonding and to explain their thinking. We asked students to interpret data collected during experiments and to provide evidence for the= ir claims.

Results

I will focus this discussion on my lived experiences in attempting to change my classroom practice to a more conceptual and reform-based approach. I will describe student behavior during class activities and experim= ents as well as some general observations of students as a whole.

During the experiments, my studen= ts had a greater sense of self-confidence in their procedures and results than students in previous years. P= reviously, students would rarely ask me clarifying questions as I monitored their experiments. For the most par= t, my current students understood the experiment, how to conduct it and collect reliable data. On the other h= and, students in the traditional setting had a written procedure provided for them and du= ring experiments and I repeatedly answered questions about how to conduct the experiment. I would become frustrated with students who could not read the procedure and carry out the experiment. Once data had been collected, students did not necessarily understand its significance and had difficulty interpreting the data to answer analysis questions at the end of= the experiment.

When my students presented their results of activities or experiments to the class, they readily supplied evidence for their claims without being prompted. Evidence accompanied every conclus= ion that was presented to the class. In previous classes, the students usually could not articulate a reason for th= eir conclusions to activities. Th= us, analysis questions for experiments as well as other higher order thinking questions on assignments were typically copied from “the smart students” in the class.

In addition, my students displaye= d an increased urgency for and a higher level of discourse; they had to discuss everything. At first, it was difficult to get students to talk to one another about their thoughts regar= ding a specific activity or experiment. I was having difficulty facilitating cla= ss discussion. It was very hard = not to just tell students the content that I wanted them to learn. I need to ask leading questions so= that students would tell me what chemistry concepts they had learned that day. However, as time passed and studen= ts began to understand that I was serious about group discussion and students began to engage in meaningful discussion.&= nbsp; I also began to develop different questioning skills to lead student= s to declare chemistry concepts in class discussion. About the middle of the semester, I noticed that students preferred to talk in their groups about all aspects of the activities and experiments so that I had difficulty focusing student attention when other students were speaking. It must be made clear that student= s were not just talking about anything – they were talking about science. As individual groups presented to = the class, other groups would discuss the information presented and make refere= nce to it when their group shared their information with the class. Students questioned one another an= d it was clear to me that students were engaged in higher level thinking by the questions asked and the information that was presented.

Barriers to Implementing Inquiry<= o:p>

&= nbsp; During the course of the study, we encountered some barriers. Because the entire ninth grade is required to take physical science, there were seventeen sections, which required five teachers. Also,= as a goal of the district, the ninth grade teachers were engaged in common assessment. That meant that u= nit tests were given on the same day for the entire ninth grade and that every ninth grade student would take an identical unit test. Thus, every time I wanted to add a= ny new test questions, such as a conceptual question, to the unit test, I needed to negotiate with the four other ninth grade science teachers since the tests = had to be identical. In addition,= since the science test was given on the same day regardless of teacher, I had to = make sure that my students were ready to take the test with all of the other nin= th grade students. Thus, managem= ent of the reform-based curriculum became an issue. We made curricular decisions based= on if we could fit them in the time before the next unit test instead of other mo= re educational reasons.

&= nbsp; Another barrier in our study was the lack of meaningful reform-based curriculum rea= dily available for ninth grade chemistry. Fortunately, I had help from the other two authors who had some experience with reform-based curriculum.&n= bsp; Thus, some curricula were used from Living By Chemistry (Lawrence Ha= ll, Berkeley) and Chemistry in Community (American Chemical Society). My co-authors were also willing to research sources for activities or experiments that we could use outright or adapt for our purposes. Howev= er we developed many of our own activities and experiments. This was a huge drain on our time = and energy.

My Experience

&= nbsp; As mentioned earlier, I was ready to change my teaching style. I was suspicious that reform-based curriculum would be a dramatic positive impact on my classroom. However, I was not expecting how h= ard changing my teaching style really would be. There are many days in my journal = that are just covered with angry rants about how frustrated I am with the curric= ulum and how I do not understand what my co-authors are talking about.

&= nbsp; “Debriefing” became my most hated word. I = had no idea what debriefing meant. A= nne would say to me, “And then you want to debrief the activity.” What did that mean? I kept demanding that Anne tell me exactly what to say, like a script, so I would know how to have the students tell me what chemistry concepts they were learning instead of me telling th= em what they should have learned from the activity. I understood that I had to stop te= lling students what they should have learned or what connections they should have made, but I did not know what to replace the silence with to have students = tell me what knowledge they constructed.

&= nbsp; I was also frustrated with not knowing what I was going to do in a couple of days. I did not know how long= it would take students to conduct an inquiry experiment or find their own patt= erns in the periodic table or debrief any given activity. Thus, I could only say with certai= nty, what happened in class yesterday, what happened today and what might happen tomorrow. Students, parents and my colleagues would want to know what happe= ning in class because of excused absences or the need to share equipment. I could not tell them. We were all in a state of uncertai= nty, and I did not enjoy that.

&= nbsp; In addition to learning about reform-based curriculum or myself, I also had to teach students, parents, colleagues and administrators about it. Students would demand that I tell = them what they need to know. They = did not want to talk about the concepts, find patterns, write their own procedu= res or decide how they could answer a question. They just wanted me to tell them w= hat to learn. Some of the students&#= 8217; parents also found the reform-based curriculum confusing. They were not sure how to help the= ir students succeed in chemistry since there were not daily assignments to review. My colleagues and administrators were supportive but they could not picture the day-to-day management of a reform-based curriculum.&n= bsp; Questions such as, ‘How do you review all of the written procedures before students conduct their experiments? How do you know what equipme= nt student will need for their experiments? How do you grade group discussion?= ’ These were all practical matters t= hat are very hard to describe to someone who has not seen reform-based curricul= um in action.

&= nbsp; During the course of this study, there were many days, mostly at the beginning, th= at I was ready to quit. My frustra= tion level was very high and I did not want my students to suffer because I could not figure out what debrief meant or how to put it into action. Only because Anne and Gill would check-in with me daily and allow me to vent my frustration, did I succeed in teaching reform-based curriculum. Anne and Gill were essential to the success seen in my classroom. In addition to the emotional suppo= rt that Anne and Gill provided for me, they also invested a lot of time and ef= fort developing the curriculum as well as conducting the experiments to determin= e if they were appropriate for a ninth grade chemistry classroom. A support netw= ork is not a luxury for one’s initial foray into reform-based curriculum;= it is a necessity.

Implications

&= nbsp; During the study, many people would ask me about my classroom. It was exceptionally difficult to describe, even to other teachers. Even though I had read much about reform-based curriculum, especially inquiry, I could not picture the day-to-day management in a classroom. I was very surprised at how diffic= ult and how unprepared I actually was for the change in my teaching style and curricular activities. I was surprised at how hard it was to allow students to tell me what they learned from an activity. It was also= very hard to ask probing questions to illicit student knowledge without construc= ting knowledge for them. Thus, to = truly understand reform-based curriculum, it must be experienced by actually doin= g it in an authentic setting.

&= nbsp; I also think that implementing reform-based curriculum is not just a pedagogy that is added to a teacher’s repertoire. It is much more than that. Implementing reform-based curricul= um is really a paradigm shift for the teacher.&n= bsp; I found that once I made the shift, about nine weeks into the study,= I was no longer frustrated. I c= ould describe what was happening in my classroom to others—not just a list= of activities or assignments—but in a holistic way that illustrated that= the minds of the students were actively engaged. I began to use the word “debrief” and know that it meant a myriad of things that studen= ts would do to engage with the science concepts. Reform-based curriculum is not just different activities; it is a frame and habit of mind.

&= nbsp; As mentioned earlier, for the novice, implementing reform-based curriculum may require scripts for the teacher. While it may be understood that the teacher does not tell students w= hat they should understand or what connections to make, it is not easily unders= tood what probing questions a teacher should use to help student explain what th= ey understand or what connections they make.&= nbsp; While this sounds easy, especially for a teacher who is a good questioner, it is very difficult. Helping students to talk like scientists requires skill. Scripts can help a teacher do this= .

Summary

&= nbsp; While I had barriers to implementing this study, I was also very lucky. I had a supportive community of pa= rents and administrators. My collea= gues were willing to add conceptual test questions. I had an ample budget for supplies= and equipment. My students, who were predominately white and upper-middle class, were willing to try new things and experiment with me. If I difficulty implementing reform-based curriculum, how can we support teachers in more difficult circumstances as they try to implement reform-based curriculum?<= /span>

References

Bunce, D. M. & Gabel, D. (2002). Differential effects on the achievement of ma= les and females of teaching the particulate nature of chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teachin= g, 39, 911-927.

Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teach= ers. Journal of Research in Science Teac= hing, 37, 916-937.

DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Dewey, J. (January, 28, 910). Science as subject-matter and as method. Science, 121-127.

Furtak, E. M. (May, 2006). The problem with answers: An exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching. Science Education, 90(3), 453-467.<= /p>

Gabel, D. L. (1998). International handboo= k of science education. Boston, MA: = Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Johnstone, A.H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 701-703.

Lederman, N. G. (1999). Teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: Factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teachin= g, 36, 916-929.

McGinnis, J. R. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry for students with disabilities. In J. Minstrell and E. H. van Zee (Eds= .) Inquiring into Inquiry Learning and Teaching in Science. Washington, D.= C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C.: Nati= onal Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry a= nd the National science education standards.&= nbsp; Washington, D.C.: Nati= onal Academy Press.

Nurrenber, S. C. & Pickering, M. (1987). Concept learning vs. problem solving. Is there a difference? Journal of Chemical Education, 64, 508-510.

Reiff, R. (2002). If inquiry if so great, why isn’t everyone doing it? Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, USA= , 22-44.

Roehrig, G. H., & Luff, J. A. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secon= dary science teachers in implementing scientific inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science Educa= tion, 26, 3-24.

Roth, W. M, & Barton A. C. (2004). Margin and Center. In Rethinking Scientific Literacy. New York, NY: Routedge-Falme= r.

Sawrey, B.A. (1990). Concept learning versus problem solving: Revisited. Journal of Chemical Education, 67, 253-254.

Wallace, C. S., & Kang, N. H. (2003). An investigation of experienced secondary science teachers’ beliefs about inquiry; An examination of completing beliefs sets. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 936-960.

Welch, W., Klopfer, L., Aikenhead, G., & Robinson, J. (1981). The role of inqu= iry in science education: Analysi= s and recommendations. Science Education,= 65, 33-50.