The effectiveness of inquiry-based learning by scaffolding ... - CiteSeerX

The effectiveness of inquiry-based learning by scaffolding students to ask “5 Why” questions Chow-chin Lu1, Jon-chao Hong2, Yu-chen Tseng3 1

Department of Natural Science Education, National Taipei University of Education 2

Department of Industrial Education, National Taiwan Normal University 3

Lin Sen Elementary School

e-mail：[email protected]，[email protected] 2， [email protected] 3 Abstract This study aims to research on the effectiveness of inquiry-based learning from Scaffolding theory by self-made bread course. The Inquiry-based learning puts more emphasis on scaffolding learners to ask “5 Why” questions step by step during the process of making bread, therefore we developed “the fragrance of crystal bread” as a teaching module by blending approach involving 4 activities such as 1.rearching on the origin of bread, 2.visiting the instructional resource center of the bakehouse by making bread from using frozen dough, 3.making bread from using powder, 4.demonstrating the self-made bread. Qusai-Experimental Study was used in this study. Two groups of students from the fourth grade in the same school were selected. The experimental group received Inquirybased teaching by the teacher to scaffold them to ask “5 Why” questions; the control group was taught via the Didactic Instruction Method by encouraging asking questions in 20 classes. After the course, a learning achievement test and Inquiry-based learning examination were used in the experiment to assess the students’ proficiency in both treatments. The results were summarized as follows: In terms of learning achievement test, no significant differences were found. Both groups got good grades. But the experimental

1

group had significant superior performances than the other group on inquiry-learning. They can specify their problems to think how to solve the problem constantly according to the details while making bread and apply all the skills learnt from bakehouse, especially in controlling the time of fermenting dough by kneading, how to stuff bread properly, how to control the oven and making different shapes of self-made bread. Key words: Inquiry-based teaching, Instructional resource center, Inquiry-based learning examination

Introduction In recent years, education authorities in Taiwan have been promoting a localized school curricula, in the hope of integrating resources from local communities into the learning experience and enriching course contents. Currently in Taiwan, most instances of teaching based on resources found in local communities relate to ecological exploration or artistic appreciation (Lin, & Lu, 2005; Yu, 2004). However, other resources available in local communities can be used profitably for school teaching; for instance, teaching about local factories means they are no longer perceived as impersonal concrete structures, but something connected to students’ lives. By interacting with and learning from professionals working in factories, children can study science in more realistic settings (Hannafin, Land, & Oliver, 1999). Local factories provide the venue, equipment, raw materials, guides, procedural explanations, and tools, according to the needs of different courses. In this open-ended learning environment, students are directed by factory staff in their scientific observations can motivate students and raise their level of inquiry (Tal, Krajcik, & Blumenfeld, 2006). In his theory of “multiple intelligences,” Gardner (1993) indicates that a wide variety of abilities exist in human beings, but these forms of intelligence are only manifested in the proper contexts.

2

As students have different talents, schools should provide individual-based teaching methods and contexts, and tailored learning stimuli, so that children have the chance to learn and perform in accordance with their intellectual character. Community factories can provide children with diverse and in-depth learning opportunities which not only incite students to discover new learning methods but also increase their potential. This study uses a local bakery as a resource for inquiry-based teaching in order to investigate learning efficiency among students. According to Piaget (1967), cognitive development in elementary school students occurs in a state of transition between the “concrete operation period” and the “formal operation period.” At this stage, the people and things around them have the most impact on and are most meaningful for them. Therefore, combining learning with life in teaching, using real-life experience and experimentation, will have a profound and long-lasting effect on students. In recent years in Taiwan, there has arisen a vogue for experiential learning, requiring that curricula be designed in accordance with the needs, interests and experiences of students, and that curricula be changed and reorganized periodically in order to promote the development of further experience. Under the experiential learning framework, teaching materials are drawn from daily life experience. Topics familiar to everyday life are also used to stimulate new ways of thinking and making judgments. All such strategies aim at expanding children’s experience and contributing to their overall development (Association for Experiential Education, 1995; Ou, 2002). Science teachers should also take the initiative to organize field trips in order to engage children in wider experience and deeper inquiries, and to help them relate learning at school with life experience in order to ground the skills they will need in the future. In other words, the various resources available in local communities can be incorporated and used creatively in school education, which will bring scientific inquiries closer to life (Hannafin et al., 1999; Polman, & Pea, 2001).

3

The US National Science Education Standards (NSES) claims that developing scientific inquiries in teaching is the most effective way to raise educational levels (NRC, 1996). When scientists pose a question, they gather data, study relevant theories and conduct experiments in order to solve it. Inquiry-based learning is similar to the scientific quest in that students learn how to negotiate, solve problems and investigate individually. This learning method is very often combined with outdoor and laboratory teaching (Finn, Maxwell, & Calver, 2002). Through this process of inquiry, children acquire knowledge by making a series of discoveries and solving different questions; such experience will undoubtedly continue to influence their lives in the future. To sum up, inquiry-based learning is a method that enables children to learn about real life in science and scientific knowledge in life. In the process of learning science, one has to devise questions, then try to understand every aspect in order to elucidate each concept and acquire true knowledge which can be used in daily life. Using learning contexts and curriculum design to guide schoolchildren to engage in inquiry-based learning and develop profound and also creative thinking ability is an issue worthy of serious investigation. In order to assess students’ learning efficiency and understand how they acquire relevant scientific concepts and inquiry-based learning abilities, we conducted a teaching experiment on elementary school fourth-graders and designed an inquiry-based teaching module, The Fragrance of Crystal Bread. Furthermore, we took students on a visit to a bakery and conducted a class on site. Students then used their newly acquired baking skills to create their own bread back in the science classroom.

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework Teaching view of Supplementary educational resources In this age when information travels fast and resources can easily be shared, schools are no

4

longer the only seat of learning. The different resources available in local communities should be used to diversify teaching places and expand students’ scope for learning. Supplementary educational resources should be used to provide a variety of teaching resources and services to satisfy the needs of teachers and students. Resources, facilities and services should be systematically integrated and responsive to teacher and student progress to help teachers enhance their teaching efficiency (Palmer, 1986; van Zee, Hammer, Bell, Roy, & Peter, 2005). This study uses a local factory as a supplementary educational resources, it offers teaching resources such as venues, equipment, raw materials, guides, and other tools that can assist teachers and thus contribute to society. The Science Technology and Society (STS) movement advocates teaching science using real-life materials, practical subject matters, and hands-on experience. That is to say, the STS approach uses technology as a bridge between science and society, and designs a science curriculum that incorporates science-related issues from the community, region, country, or even around the globe. The aim is to arouse children’s interest in and curiosity about these issues and to encourage them to be creative and solve questions with a scientific attitude, procedures and concepts (Yager, 1992). This research takes the STS approach and conducts inquiry-based education using a factory as a supplementary teaching resource site. Dale’s “cone of experience” (1969) can be divided into three stages: learning through doing, through observation, and through abstraction. Dale claims that, by directly participating in the learning process, students are more motivated and take greater interest in learning. Therefore, if children are to develop higher-level abstract knowledge and so grasp the significance of abstract descriptions of concrete things, they should be provided with opportunities to use their senses to learn from empirical observation. This study uses a bakery as a supplementary resources site, teachers are allowed to take children on a visit to

5

the bakery, thus initiating the learning-through-observation stage of Dale’s cone of experience. By engaging in hands-on practice in the bakery, students are also able to move on to the stages of learning through doing and through observation. Inquiry-based teaching and experiential learning The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1994) defines scientific inquiry first of all as scientists presenting explanations based on the facts and evidence derived in the course of their research, and secondly as the various activities that lead students to acquire knowledge, form scientific concepts and learn scientific methods. The US National Science Education Standards has devised four principles for science education, of which the first is active learning and inquiry-based teaching. The NSES also stipulates five stages in inquiry-based teaching: devising questions, forming hypotheses, presenting and verifying solutions, explaining findings, and applying results (NRC, 1996). When children engage in scientific inquiry, their goal is to explain scientific results about natural and physical phenomena, and discuss their findings with other peers. Developing the ability to explain scientific results is a very important part of scientific inquiry, for the aim of learning science is not to accept received explanations, but to reach a scientific understanding through inquiry. The ability to explain scientific results can be divided into two sorts. The first includes identifying causal relationships, describing trains of reasoning, and using data as evidence; the second covers making claims, using graphs to support explanations, using precise and detailed language to explain, and evaluating the soundness of explanations (Hsieh, & Wu, 2005; Zion, & Slezak, 2005). We can classify a variety of inquiry-based teaching methods on the basis of the degree of openness of each inquiry. Openness is determined by the nature of the problem, procedure and whether solutions are provided by teachers or found by students themselves (Herron, 1971). Herron (1971) describes four levels of inquiry: 0. Confirmation /

6

Verification - students confirm a principle through a prescribed activity when the results are known in advance. 1. Structured Inquiry - students investigate a teacher-presented question through a prescribed procedure. 2. Guided Inquiry - students investigate a teacher-presented question using student designed / selected procedures. 3. Open Inquiry - students investigate topic-related questions that are student formulated through student designed/selected procedures. When an activity is evaluated for its level of inquiry, a simple table establishing what is given to the learner determines at which level of inquiry the given activity resides—the less given to the learner the higher the level of inquiry.

What is given to the learner? Level of Inquiry 0 1 2 3

Problem?

Procedure?




−



− −

Solution?
− − −

Experiential learning is the process by which a person constructs knowledge, and acquires skills through direct experience, the core values of experiential learning are the transformation of experience and the construction of meaning (AEE, 1995). Knowledge is a kind of ability that enables the solving of real life problems and enhances the transformation of experience; thus, teaching materials should provide information that is relevant to the lives of students (Jarvis, Holford, & Griffin, 1998). According to Kolb (1984), learning is a process of a combination of grasping experience and transforming it. The essence of experiential learning is that it involves not only understanding phenomena, and not only observing the phenomena being studied (grasping or comprehension), but it also focuses upon doing something with them, such as testing them or applying them with the intention of achieving a desired result (transformation). What makes the experience a possible educative one is that this experience provides the student with the opportunity to

7

have an inherent interest in what happens in the experience and the student has a chance for reflection (Taniguchi, 2004). This study surveys a group of fourth-grade elementary school students. At the start of the study, when actively engaged in scientific inquiry, the children’s level of inquiry was mostly 0 or 1 on Herron’s scale. We used a bakery as a supplementary resource site to conduct a guided inquiry. In other words, teachers assigned questions and guided the students to discover reasons, form hypotheses, design or select procedures, conduct verification, and explain results. In addition, during the visit, teachers also guided children in close observation of the bread manufacturing process, and then later in making bread by themselves. By experiencing how bread took shape in their own hands, the students we able to reflect on the relevant scientific concepts and conduct higher-level scientific inquiry once back at school. Teachers and scaffolding guidance In an inquiry-based teaching framework, teachers are no longer lecturers or controllers. Instead, they use various methods to guide students to actively engage in learning. Teachers should provide with students challenges and encourage them to learn through making inquiries. At the same time, teachers should offer a favorable learning environment, for instance by maintaining good teacher-student relations, creating a relaxed atmosphere, respecting children’s ideas and encouraging the interchange of ideas between students, so that children are motivated to engage in active inquiry. Teachers should also stimulate and motivate students to formulate questions by using activities, experiments or stories (Crawford, 2000; Lunenberg, & Volman, 1999; Polman, & Pea, 2001). Vygotsky (1978) elaborated the idea of the zone of proximal development, on the basis of which Wood, Bruner & Ross (1976) devised the concept of scaffolding. Teachers provide students with scaffolding guidance to assist them in their inquiry, then remove the

8

support when students no longer need it (Hogan, & Pressley, 1997). Hannafin, et al. (1999) divide scaffolding into four types. 1) Conceptual scaffolding consists in guiding children to construct new concepts or solve questions by finding answers, evidence and explanations. 2) Procedural scaffolding consists in guiding children to make use of resources or tools to solve questions in order to acquire knowledge. 3) Metacognitive scaffolding involves assisting students in identifying certain tasks to complete the learning process by guiding them to consider other facets and solutions. 4) Strategic scaffolding is guiding students to learn from the paths or patterns of other people’s solutions; that is, giving students a direction and allowing them to reason on their own. According to Piaget’s (1967) theory of cognitive development, conceptual and procedural scaffolding tend to occur during the concrete operation period, whereas metacognitive and strategic scaffolding are dominant during the formal operation period. For teachers, scaffolding strategy can progress gradually from conceptual to strategic types—in coordination with the various needs of children’s cognitive development at different ages, teaching goals, and teaching activities— in order to achieve maximum effect (Mattanah, Pratt, Cowan, & Cowan, 2005). Through inquiry-based teaching, children’s critical thinking and reasoning abilities can be developed. The technique most used for this is “the five whys” (Eberle, 1982; Ennis, 1989; Zion, & Slezak, 2005). When giving students scaffolding guidance, teachers can ask give “why” questions to lead students to think and verify their hypotheses. Here is an example of how this technique is applied: Q1: Why is the bread burnt? Ans: Perhaps the top of the dough was too close to the heat source at the top of the oven. Q2: Why was the dough too close to the heat source at the top? Ans: Maybe the dough is too big. Q3: Why is the dough too big? Ans: Probably because we didn’t measure it when we made it. Q4: Why didn’t you measure it? Ans: Because we only measure the size of the finished product. Q5: So why did the bread burn? Ans: If we don’t take into consideration the fact that the dough

9

will rise in the oven, it becomes bigger than expected. Using class activity designs and the five why-questions, teachers can guide the students to reflect on the phenomena they are curious about or do not understand on the basis of their observations and discoveries. By asking follow-up questions, the teacher also leads students to think and make inductions in response to the previous question or the teacher’s hints. In this way, teachers can train children to make step-by-step inquiries in accordance with evidence and data, and to engage in more in-depth investigation, which eventually leads them to find a solution. This study, teachers adopt procedural scaffolding as their guidance strategy and use the five whys technique to encourage reasoning and discussion among the children. Teachers also assist students to make use of available resources and tools to solve questions arising from the process of making bread.

Methodology Design of inquiry-based teaching activities This study, we develop a teaching module called The Fragrance of Crystal Bread, which involves a series of activities: 1) children discuss in groups and research the origin of bread and bread recipes on the internet or in the library; 2) students pay a visit to a bakery, where the staff demonstrate how to make bread and help children to bake their own bread; 3) children choose the ingredients and procedures for preparing and baking their own bread; 4) students demonstrate their bread, and discuss the questions they came up with while making it. The experimental group was guided using through the five-whys scaffolding questions, such as How should you knead in order to make a good dough? The curriculum designs are shown in Table 1.

10

Table 1 Curriculum designs for the experimental group and the control group Scaffolding questions (Experimental Group) How should you knead in order to make a good dough? Q1: Why do we knead dough?  General Q2: How should you knead the dough so that all the ingredients are well mixed and the dough is elastic?  Generalization Q3: What if you knead too hard? Or not hard enough?  Negative Q4: How do you know when the dough is ready?  Inductive Q5: What are the characteristics of dough when it is ready? Inductive

Normal lecture (Control Group) How do you knead dough? 1. Prepare some flour and water and mix together. 2. Keep kneading the mixture until the dough becomes soft and elastic. 3. Ready dough has a smooth surface.

Evaluation Knowing how much flour and water are needed to make dough Knowing that, after kneading, the dough is elastic and the surface appears smooth.

Research Methodology A teaching module, The Fragrance of Crystal Bread, was designed based on the principles of inquiry-based teaching and experiential learning. We then used the quasi-experimental method to carry out an experiment on the students. Teachers took the procedural scaffolding approach to teaching the experimental group, while the control group received normal lectures. Before the experiment, both groups received a learning achievement test on bread-making. During the teaching session, four teachers participating in class observation evaluated the children’s inquiry-based learning performance. After the teaching session, the two groups of students received a post-test, and a delayed post-test one month later. Teachers conducted individual interviews with each student to discover the reasons behind the answers children gave in the tests and investigate changes in their inquiry-based learning abilities. Samples This study takes as a sample fourth-grade students from an elementary school in Taoyuan, Taiwan. The students were selected on the basis of their third-year natural science grades. Students from two classes with similar performances were then divided into experimental and control groups, each of which had 35 students. Both groups visited the same factory and used the same facilities and equipment in the natural science classroom. They also both underwent the same teaching activities and received equal teaching time.

11

Research Tools Bread-making Achievement Testing (BMAT) On the basis of the competence indicators and teaching material guidelines detailed in the Taiwan Ministry of Education’s Grade 1–9 Curriculum, and the teaching module, The Fragrance of Crystal Bread, we designed an achievement test on bread-making. The test covers subjects such as the chemical reactions, equilibrium and reaction, food and science, technology and life. The goal is to test whether students truly understand relevant scientific concepts and bread-making techniques. We invited three science education experts from National Taiwan Normal University and National Taipei University of Education to establish the content validity of the test. We then pre-tested internal consistency reliability using elementary school fifth-grade students from Taoyuan, and gathered 256 valid samples. The Kr-21 was 0.84, a signifying stability reliability, the Difficulty Index for BMAT were 0.41~0.87, and the Discrimination Index for BMAT were 0.13~0.61, conforming to the standards of a formal achievement test. Evaluation of Inquiry-Based Learning (EIBL) Zion & Slezak (2005) indicate that the following dimensions might be considered when evaluating children’s inquiry-based learning: the ability to formulate questions and develop hypotheses, isolation and control of variants, categorization of data, and the ability to draw conclusions. Other criteria include responsibility, motivation, and perseverance. The Evaluation of Inquiry-Based Learning developed and used in the present study was inspired by academic work on inquiry-based learning and group-cooperation learning, though modified to suit our needs (Finn et al., 2002; Huang, & Lin, 1996; Kaartinen, & Kumpulainen, 2002; Lu, & Yang, 2005; Siegel, 2005; Zion, Slezak, Shapira, Link, Bashan, Brumer, Orian, Nussinowitz, Court, Agrest, Mendelovici, & Valanides, 2004; Zion, & Slezak, 2005). The EIBL uses a five-point Likert scale (very bad, bad, common, good, very

12

good) and consists of 24 questions that test six aspects of students’ inquiry-learning abilities: the ability to formulate question, general inquiry skills, data-gathering, inquisitiveness, level of inquiry, and cooperation. Three professors of science education from National Taiwan Normal University and several experienced elementary school natural science teachers were invited to establish the content validity of the EIBL test. Eight teachers participating in class observation used the hermeneutic method and conducted a Kappa analysis, yielding a Kappa value of 0.8782 (Hong, 1997). A internal consistency reliability was then conducted on the evaluation checklist, of which Cronbach α = 0.979. Cronbach α of the six aspects was 0.926, 0.888, 0.874, 0.952, 0.967, and 0.907, respectively. All the indices conform to the standards of a formal evaluation checklist. Data Gathering and Analysis Quantitative data: data from the pre-test, post-test and delayed post-test of the breadmaking achievement test were then analyzed using SPSS 10.0 software. In order to understand how well the children learnt about scientific concepts relating to bread-making before and after the teaching experiment, we used a t-test to analyze the data, and calculate the effect size (ES). We classify a standardized difference below 0.2 as a small ES, between 0.2 and 0.79 as a moderate ES, and above 0.8 as a large ES (Cohen, 1988). Qualitative data: analyses of answers given in the BMAT and the EIBL, classroom observation, learning sheets, audio-visual records, interviews, and teachers’ journals. We conducted an interpretative analysis of all data in order to determine changes in children’s scientific concepts about bread-making, their scientific skills and inquiry-based learning abilities. To further enhance the study’s reliability, all six members involved in this research performed triangulation by reviewing and evaluating all data.

13

Results Performance of achievement test on experiment and control groups We conducted BMAT a pre-test, a post-test, and a delayed post-test on both the experiment and the control groups, then a t-test analysis of dependent samples, in order to understand whether the groups acquired relevant scientific concepts. The results of our analysis are shown in Table 2. Table 2 T-test analysis of dependent samples of BMAT on both groups t-test for pre- and post-tests

Delayed posttest

t-test for pre-test and delayed post-test

Pre-test

Post-test

M/SD

M/SD

T-value

P-value

M/SD

T-value

P-value

34.23/2.29

-4.64

0.000**

33.63/1.99

-3.72

0.001**

32.97/4.32

-2.51

0.017*

32.40/4.85

-2.13

0.040*

Group Experiment 32.11/2.47 Group Control 31.31/4.62 Group

*p