Blanchard defended on June 14, 2006. ... can say, âHey, the President of NARST was on my committee. ...... Washington, DC: National Academic Press. ewma.
THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
ASSIMILATION OR TRANSFORMATION? AN ANALYSIS OF CHANGE IN TEN SECONDARY SCIENCE TEACHERS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY-BASED RESEARCH EXPERIENCE FOR TEACHERS
By MARGARET R. BLANCHARD
A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Middle and Secondary Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Awarded: Summer Semester, 2006
The members of the Committee approve the Dissertation of Margaret R. Blanchard defended on June 14, 2006.
_________________________ Nancy T. Davis Professor Directing Dissertation _________________________ J. Anthony Stallins Outside Committee Member _________________________ Elizabeth D. Purdum Committee Member _________________________ Penny J. Gilmer Committee Member _________________________ Sherry A. Southerland Committee Member
Approved: _________________________ Pamela Carroll, Chair, Department of Middle & Secondary Education
The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I knew my departure and therefore completion of the dissertation were imminent when my major professor Dr. Nancy T. Davis said, “it’s time to birth the baby.” Nancy hands you a book every time you leave her office, then wonders what happened to all of her books. She was a cheerleader for me periodically throughout my long tenure at FSU, although Nancy drew the line at wearing her old cheerleader outfit. She offered me insight and useful conversations that helped stimulated my thinking early in the process of this research. Over the years, Nancy’s humor, generosity, and insight have helped to sustain me. Dr. Sherry Southerland entered into my life late in the process (relatively speaking, I still had two years left), yet managed to carry me on her on coattails to the tune of my first major grant, two book chapters, a year’s research project, numerous articles, and invaluable help on re-thinking substantive issues in my dissertation. She is the one who calls me “woman,” sends five articles when I ask for one, rips my first drafts to shreds, and always bothers to see how I’m holding up emotionally. Sherry alternates between being “dazed and confused,” hilarious, and sharp as a whip. I still laugh over her comment, “I can tell how productive I was last year by the size of my ass.” I will never forget when she edited my skimpy first draft of this year’s ASTE conference paper and told me it was “kinda fun, like rearranging a house that didn’t have very much furniture in it.” Ouch. Count on Sherry for laugher, ruthless intelligence, and the truth. Dr. Elizabeth Purdum was added to my committee mostly for her beautiful wardrobe, but I also know she is an awesome editor and thought that quality might come in handy. Plus, she occasionally babysits for my children, has provided me with jobs onand-off throughout graduate school, and laughs at all of my jokes. If you had been forced to read earlier drafts of my writing you’d be particularly impressed with the help Betsy has provided in revising parts of this dissertation and getting some journal articles to review. But she may have functioned more as a counselor, as Betsy was a regular support throughout the years I endured school, three moves, two children, and two degrees.
Her favorite line through the many months of the dissertation was, “It’s not the
iii
end of your career, darling, it’s the beginning.” Betsy is the only person I know who can use the word “darling” and still have people take her seriously. There would be no dissertation without Dr. Ellen Granger, who gave me access to the MET project and supported me financially throughout the writing, paying for all the transcription and some expensive travel. I’m not sure whether calling her “Sugar Mama” might not be more appropriate than “Ellen.” She also gave me regular doses of positive feedback and helped me get my job at NC State University by writing me an undoubtedly overly optimistic letter of reference. Ellen and I will forever be joined through the many publications we hope to garner through this work. “A dissertation never ends, it just reformulates itself,” or so I learned from Dr. J. Anthony Stallins, a physical geographer who so impressed me with his teaching that I asked him to serve as my outside committee member. Tony has been very supportive, periodically joining me for meals over the many months and saying comforting things like “Hey, just think where you were two years ago…you are very close now.” He had the pleasure of raising a three-year-old the final year of my dissertation, therefore finally joining me with tired eyes and that parental weariness I know too well. One day we will actually publish our fox squirrel paper. Dr. Penny Gilmer has never said an unkind word to anyone in the nine years I have known her. Penny is President-elect for NARST, and I look forward to the day I can say, “Hey, the President of NARST was on my committee.” The eternal optimist, Penny functioned as a job reference for me and actually told one person that she “couldn’t think of anything negative to say about me.” You can’t buy that kind of support! Whenever I asked her for advice or help, Penny promptly helped me, despite regular commitments to her countless professional organizations, her classes, and the many graduate students she advises, plus an occasional ballroom dancing class. Penny is the only person I know of who has two doctorates, a true testament to her commitment to learning. Dr. Chris Muire was instrumental in helping me to develop my thinking on the prospectus and continued to be a regular source of encouragement throughout the process. He calls me Mamma Bear and is one of those people who always makes me feel
iv
like I am better teacher, writer, mom, and human than I really am. The only thing I wish is that I had cut a deal he would quit smoking when I finished my dissertation. I would be remiss in not thanking fellow graduate students and colleagues Dr. Martin Balinsky, Mehmet Aydeniz, Ayhan Karaman, Hakan Atar, Yavuz Yalaki, Barry Golden, Renee Murray, Wilbert Butler, Myoung-ok Kim, and Sarah Carothers Jackson. Martin and I are graduating together, and the others all will become “Dr.” either very soon or eventually. We attended one another’s defenses and encouraged each other, which made it fun amidst the angst and the hard work. Dr. Alejandro Gallard gave me regular doses of unsolicited advice, with the intention of being helpful. I will think of him whenever I leave my new job to pick up my children and tell someone, “I have a meeting.” I would also like to thank Dr. William “Doc” Herrnkind, Jeff Dutrow, Dr. Kari Lavalli, and Dr. Maggie Helly, who each gave me much of their time and help as I “hung around” during the summer program and asked them questions. In the end, I pathetically sent out APBs to anyone and everyone I ever knew. Dr. Elizabeth Hancock, Dr. Rose Pringle, Dr. Scott Sowell, Dr. Seth Bigelow, Trisha Borgen, Kelli Flournoy, and Dr. Douglas Zahn were enlisted as volunteer “coaches” to send me encouragement and keep me company in my long nights of the final stages of writing, which happened in spurts when I had breaks in my grant commitments. Doug spent many sessions on the phone with me, counseling me to move past the road blocks and back into a productive mode. I took to referring to my technique as “slop and drop,” because I was throwing in data anywhere and everywhere I could trying to fill in sections of the many elusive chapters. My sisters Lisa Wiley and Dr. Julia Pesavento helped me rack up scary numbers on my cell phone minutes as I struggled to finish, and my friend Diane Bahr responded and encouraged at every email or phone call. If I had to name all the sitters who helped with childcare, I’m not sure I could. We are easily into double digits in that category. Jon was the A #1 Daddy Extraordinaire, pulling the hours of a single Dad for months and months. Misti Prescott helped early in the process, and then Kristin Dryjowicz was the relief pitcher, getting me to home plate.
v
If I don’t thank my parents, they will never forgive me. My Mom, Rita Prunuske, will be glad she finally can say “My daughter’s a professor” instead of “No, she’s not done yet.” My Mom gave me encouragement whenever I asked her, and I have always known she was there for me. My Dad, Richard Pesavento, is happy I am done, except that he now has to help us remodel another house. We already have him slated to help with kitchen renovations in the early months following our move. Luckily, the house does not need the major renovations the last one did, meaning I hope not to see my Dad on his knees stripping linoleum off hardwood floors. Actually, our new house doesn’t have any hardwood floors, so I think he’s safe. My Dad told me “always do your best” and my Mom used to say “you’ll never regret having done it,” which clearly stuck with me. Both of them believe strongly in the value of education and hard work, and without their instilling that in me, I would not be here. I love my children, Benjamin and Emerson, but giving them any credit for my finishing is like thanking a loose bull for straightening up your house. They were noisy, messy, and demanding. I was never able to work around them, which meant that I was able to get breaks from the dissertation and lots of hugs when I needed them most. I have an image burned into my mind of Emerson crying “don’t go Mommy” as I pulled out of the driveway to head back to the office, night after night. I would never recommend doing a dissertation with children, or actually trying to accomplish anything with children, but I would do it all over again (not the dissertation, but having the kids). And finally, I must thank my husband Jon, who has filled my last six years with pearls of wisdom such as “the only good dissertation is a done dissertation” and “put a period at the end of that sentence and call it done.” I, in return, explained my slow pace by telling all who would listen, “I’m not writing a dissertation, I’m growing a career.” I may finally have succeeded in convincing Jon that my Ph.D. took six years, not the nine he has historically claimed. For all the late nights with the kids, all the cooking, and all the financial support he provided, Jon ought to receive an honorary doctorate for his years of effort toward my goal (and may actually be surprised to learn that he will not). I am afraid he will have to settle for a public acknowledgement from his high maintenance wife as we enter a new chapter in our lives. Thank you so much, Jon. I love you. We did it!
vi
Conducting this research and writing this dissertation has been a humbling experience. Mostly, I am humbled and honored to have worked with such exceptional and dedicated teachers. All of the teachers gave me their confidence and allowed me entry into their lives, which made this dissertation possible. In the interest of preserving their anonymity, I will not name them, but not one sentence of my findings could have been written without their consent and their participation. I had many days when I was exhausted simply watching the teachers do their jobs. We do not value teachers enough in our society, and I perhaps even further appreciate the level of their work now that I am no longer working daily amongst them. I am not the person I was when I began this process. For one thing, I am older. But, I do not believe that I or the teachers are who we were when this study began. It has changed our lives, because we have learned. Thankfully, this document must end. But my learning will continue, for this is not the end of my career, it is the beginning.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………xix List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………..xxii Abstract………………………………………………………………………………...xxiii CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF STUDY Introduction ……………………………………………………………………….1 Research Questions………………………………………………………………..2 Significance of Research Questions……………………………………………….3 Personal Rationale………………………………………………………………...6 Summary…………………………………………………………………………11 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction………………………………………………………………………14 What is Inquiry-Based Science Teaching?............................................................15 Contextual Issues………………………………………………………………...17 Locating MET’s Inquiry Model on an Inquiry Continuum……………………...19 Scientific or Open-Ended Inquiry………………………………………..19 Guided or Collaborative Inquiry…………………………………………21 Structured Inquiry or Simple School Science……………………………23 Research on Reform Efforts……………………………………………………...23 The Rational Aspect to Change………………………………………….25
viii
Teacher Beliefs and Values……………………………………………...27 Theoretical Frameworks…………………………………………………………29 Integral Spiral Dynamics………………………………………………...31 Developmental Theory…………………………………………………...35 Summary…………………………………………………………………………37 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY AND METHODS Introduction………………………………………………………………………38 Format of the Dissertation……………………………………………………….40 Expanded Research Questions…………………………………………………...40 Focus of Study…………………………………………………………………...41 Methodology……………………………………………………………………..43 Naturalistic Evaluation…………………………………………………...45 The Marine Ecology for Teachers Program……………………………………...50 Teacher Participants and Settings………………………………………………..54 Data Sources……………………………………………………………………..58 Data Issues……………………………………………………………………….60 Conceptual Frameworks…………………………………………………………61 Data Rubrics and Related Data Analysis Techniques……………………………62 Pre and Post Program Questionnaires on Inquiry………………………..62 Videotapes and Coding Teacher-Student Questions…………………….64 Quality Criteria…………………………………………………………………..69 ix
Trustworthiness…………………………………………………………..69 Authenticity………………………………………………………………76 Fairness…………………………………………………………..76 Ontological Authenticity…………………………………………77 Educative Authenticity…………………………………………...78 Catalytic and Tactical Authenticity……………………………...79 Summary…………………………………………………………………………80 CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS UNIVERSITY AS REFORM AGENT: HOW INQUIRY CONCEPTIONS UNDERLYING A NON-TRADITIONAL RET INTERSECT WITH THOSE OF SCIENCE TEACHERS AND OTHER SCIENTISTS Abstract…………………………………………………………………………..81 Introduction………………………………………………………………………82 Theoretical Framework…………………………………………………………..84 Methodology and Methods………………………………………………………88 Naturalistic Evaluation…………………………………………………...88 Data Sources……………………………………………………..88 Interview Data of PIs…………………………………………….88 Teacher Conceptions Data……………………………………….89 Scientists’ Conceptions from the Literature……………………..90 The Process of Coding…………………………………………………...............90 Findings………………………………………………………………………….91 Kathleen………………………………………………………………….91 Program PI Background………………………………………….92
x
Kathleen’s Interview Data……………………………………….93 Conceptions of Inquiry…………………………………..93 Goals for Teachers in the Program………………………93 Kathleen’s PI Values and Goals…………………………………96 Cap……………………………………………………………………....97 Program PI Background………………………………………....97 Cap’s Interview Data…………………………………………….98 Conceptions of Inquiry…………………………………..98 Goals for Teachers in the Program………………………99 Cap’s PI Values and Goals……………………………………..100 Summary of Kathleen’s and Cap’s Data………………………………..101 Cross Case Analysis of Data……………………………………………………101 Discussion and Implications……………………………………………………105 CHAPTER FIVE: FINDINGS BE MINDFUL OF WHAT YOU MODEL: SECONDARY SCIENCE TEACHERS’ EVOLVING CONCEPTIONS OF INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE TEACHING Abstract…………………………………………………………………………107 Introduction……………………………………………………………………..108 Program Context………………………………………………………………..110 MET Program, A Research Experience for Teachers…………………..110 Rationale………………………………………………………………..111
xi
Methodology……………………………………………………………………113 Participants……………………………………………………………...113 Data Collection and Data Analysis……………………………………………..115 Data Sources……………………………………………………………115 Support for Conceptions of Inquiry…………………………………….116 Findings………………………………………………………………………...118 Coding of Questionnaires………………………………………………119 Displaying Data………………………………………………………...123 Comparing Responses to the Final Question of the Questionnaire…….125 Discussion and Implications……………………………………………………127 What were the Changes in Teachers’ Conceptions of Inquiry?...............127 Why did these Changes in Teachers’ Conceptions occur?......................129 Implications……………………………………………………………..130 CHATER SIX: FINDINGS NO SILVER BULLET FOR INQUIRY: THE INTERACTIONS OF RET’S AND TEACHERS’ CONCEPTIONS OF TEACHING & LEARNING Abstract…………………………………………………………………………131 Introduction……………………………………………………………………..132 Theoretical Frame of the Research……………………………………………..133 Methodology……………………………………………………………………135 Professional Development Context—MET program description………………137
xii
Participants……………………………………………………………………...139 Data Sources……………………………………………………………………140 Inquiry Questionnaire, Pre/Post Program………………………………141 Recordings of Science Lessons, Pre/Post………………………………142 STIR instrument, Post Program………………………………………...142 Interviews, Post Program……………………………………………….143 Participant observation………………………………………………….144 Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………...144 Support for Conceptions of Inquiry…………………………………….145 Transcripts of Science Lessons, Pre/Post……………………………….146 Why Analyze Questions?.........................................................................150 STIR instrument, Post Program………………………………………...155 Critical Incident Analysis, Pre/Post Program…………………………..155 Findings………………………………………………………………………...157 Rogue…………………………………………………………………...158 Teacher Background……………………………………………158 School and Classroom Context…………………………………159 Rogue’s Pre Data……………………………………………….160 Motivation………………………………………………160 Pre Program Lesson…………………….........................160 Pre Program Conceptions of Inquiry…….......................160 xiii
Pre Program Enactment of Inquiry……………………..161 Summary of Rogue’s Pre Progam Data………………………...162 Rogue’s Post Data………………………………………………163 Post Program Lesson…………………………................163 Post Conceptions of Inquiry……………….....................163 Post Program Enactment of Inquiry…………………….165 STIR Analysis…………………………..........................165 Critical Incidents Analysis…………………..................166 Future Goals for Inquiry………………..........................167 Rogue’s Teaching Values and Goals………...................168 Summary of Conceptions and Enactment Changes…………….169 Kaitlin…………………………………………………………………..169 Teacher Background…………………………............................170 School and Classroom Context………………............................171 Kaitlin’s Pre Data……………………………….........................171 Motivation………………………………………………171 Pre Program Lesson…………………………………….172 Pre Program Conceptions of Inquiry…………………...172 Pre Program Enactment of Inquiry……………………..173 Summary of Kaitlin’s Pre Program Data……………………….174
xiv
Kaitlin’s Post Data………………………...................................175 Post Program Lesson……………………………………175 Post Program Conceptions of Inquiry…………………..175 Post Program Enactment of Inquiry…………………….177 STIR Analysis………………………………..................178 Critical Incidents Analysis…………………..................178 Kaitlin’s Teaching Values and Goals………..................180 Future Goals for Inquiry………………..........................181 Summary of Conception and Enactment Changes……………...181 Cross Case Analysis and Discussion…………………...........................182 Discussion and Implications……………………………………………185 CHAPTER SEVEN: FINDINGS IN PURSUIT OF THE HOLY GRAIL: UNDERSTANDING INQUIRY IN REAL CLASSROOMS THROUGH QUESTION ANALYSIS Abstract…………………………………………………………………………188 Introduction……………………………………………………………………..189 Research Methodology…………………………………………………………192 Context………………………………………………………………….192 Participants in the Study………………………………………………..193 Data Sources……………………………………………………………195 Recordings of Science Lessons, Pre/Post………………………195
xv
STIR Instrument, Post Program………………………………...196 Interviews, Post Program……………………………………….197 Participant Observation…………………………………………198 Data Analysis…………………………………………………………...198 Coding Content Questions……………………………………...199 Coding Noncontent Questions………………………………….201 Why I Coded Questions………………………………………...201 Starting with the Individual Teacher’s Data……………………202 Differences in Lessons………………………………………….203 STIR Instrument, Post Program………………………………...204 Findings………………………………………………………………………...204 Stages of Inquiry………………………………………………………..207 Pre Program Question Data…………………………………………….207 Post Program Data……………………………………………………...210 Negotiating the STIR Instrument……………………………………….213 Discussion and Implications…………………………………………………....215 Question Patterns……………………………………………………….215 Lesson Length and Components………………………………………..217 STIR Instrument………………………………………………………...217 CHAPTER EIGHT: DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
xvi
Introduction……………………………………………………………………..219 Factors in the Literature………………………………………………………...220 Factors Supporting Inquiry-Based Instruction………………………………….221 The Program PIs’ Conceptions and Goals……………………………...221 The MET Program Structure…………………………………………...222 Reflection……………………………………………………….222 Prior Content Knowledge………………………………………223 Scientific Inquiry Experiences………………………………….223 Post Program Lesson Development…………………………….224 Long Engagement………………………………………………224 Alignment of Teachers’ Value Structures, Goals, and Knowledge…….225 Alignment of Teacher Value Structures………………………..225 Alignment of Goals……………………………………………..226 Teachers’ Knowledge…………………………………………..226 Contextual Issues……………………………………………………….227 Factors Constraining Inquiry-Based Instruction………………………………..228 The Program PIs’ Conceptions and Goals……………………………...228 The MET Program Structure…………………………………………...229 Insufficient Connections to other Models………………………230 Insufficient Connections to the Classroom……………………..230 Misalignment of Teachers’ Value Structures, Goals, and Knowledge…231 Misalignment of Teacher Value Structures…………………….231 Misalignment of Goals…………………………………………231 Insufficient Teacher Knowledge……………………………….232 Contextual Issues……………………………………………………….233
xvii
Discussion and Implications……………………………………………………233 Reform through RETs and other Professional Development…………..234 Research and Pedagogy in Science Education………………………….235 Theoretical Implications………………………………………………..236 An Analysis of the Theoretical Frames of this Study…………………………..237 Integral Spiral Dynamics……………………………………………….237 Competing Commitments versus the Role of Teacher Values…………241 Limitations of this Study……………………………………………………......243 Directions for Future Research…………………………………………………244 APPENDIX......................................................................................................................246 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………249 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................260
xviii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1. Summary of Sample Inquiry-based Science Teaching Characteristics and Designations……………………………………………………………………...20 Table 2.2. Summary of Four Value Structure Codes [Worldviews]…………………….32 Table 3.1. Summary of Conventional and naturalistic Belief Systems…………………45 Table 3.2. MET Program Details, Years 1-5……………………………………………51 Table 3.3. Summer of 2004 MET Program Calendar, June 7-July 9……………………53 Table 3.4. Teacher Participant Overview……………………………………………….57 Table 3.5. Teacher/Learner Inquiry Continuum, with Data Samples Coded……………63 Table 3.6. Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy Data Sheet, Teacher’s Version………………..65 Table 3.7. STIR Rubric…………………………………………………………………67 Table 3.8. Summary of Examples fro Establishing Trustworthiness with Main Teachers and Secondary Teachers in Dissertation Study…………………………………..70 Table 4.1. Frequency of Characteristics used to describe Inquiry Investigator and Investigation named by 52 Science Faculty…………………………………….101 Table 4.2. Overview of Teachers’ Pre and Post Program Conceptions of Inquiry, in terms of Learner Centeredness………………………………………………………..103 Table 4.3. Inquiry Comparison between Scientists, MET Scientists, and Classroom Teachers of MET Program……………………………………………………...104 Table 5.1. Teacher Participant Overview……………………………………………...113 Table 5.2. Teacher/Learner Inquiry Continuum, with Data Samples Coded…………..117 Table 5.3. Pre Program Questionnaire Coding: Teacher/Learner Inquiry Continuum for Nate……………………………………………………………………………..121 Table 5.4. Post Program Questionnaire Coding: Teacher/Learner Inquiry Continuum for Nate……………………………………………………………………………..122 Table 5.5. Summary of Last Question Responses, Pre and Post Program Questionnaires …………………………………………………………………………………..126 xix
Table 5.6. Illustrations of New Terminology present on Post Program Questionnaires …………………………………………………………………………………..127 Table 6.1. Overview of Teacher Participants…………………………………………..140 Table 6.2. Sample of Nate’s Pre Program Questionnaire, Teacher/Learner Inquiry Continuum……………………………………………………………………...146 Table 6.3. Tally of Bloom’s Taxonomy Analysis of Michael’s Teacher Question Data (Day 1)………………………………………………………………………….148 Table 6.4. Tally of Noncontent Questions, Michael’s Teacher Question Data (Day 1) …………………………………………………………………………………..149 Table 6.5. Rogue’s Negotiated STIR Rubric…………………………………………..153 Table 6.6. Support for Rogue’s Pre Program Conceptions…………………………….161 Table 6.7. Rogue Pre and Post Program Question Analysis by Day…………………..162 Table 6.8. Support for Rogue’s Post Program Conceptions…………………………...164 Table 6.9. Rogue’s STIR Table Results………………………………………………..165 Table 6.10. Support for Kaitlin’s Pre Program Conceptions…………………………..173 Table 6.11. Kaitlin’s Pre and Post Program Question Analysis by Day……………….174 Table 6.12. Support for Kaitlin’s Post Program Conceptions…………………………176 Table 6.13. Kaitlin’s STIR Table Results……………………………………………...178 Table 6.14. Overview of Participants’ Pre and Post Program Data……………………183 Table 7.1. Teacher Participant Overview……………………………………………...193 Table 7.2. Examples of Teacher Questions Coded using a Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy …………………………………………………………………………………..200 Table 7.3. Sample Coding of Noncontent Questions…………………………………..201 Table 7.4. Sample Individual Pre and Post Program Data Table for one Teacher, Rogue. Question Analysis by Each Day of the Inquiry Lesson………………………...202 Table 7.5. Princess’s Negotitated STIR Rubric………………………………………..205
xx
Table 7.6. Comparison of MET Stages of Inquiry, as enacted by Teachers in Post Program Lesson………………………………………………………………...207 Table 7.7. Summary of Data for all Teachers of Pre Program Question Data………...208 Table 7.8. Summary Data for all Teachers of Post Program Questions Data, Stages 1,2, & 3…………………………………………………………………………………211 Table 7.9. Summary Data for all Teachers of Post Program Question Data, Stage 4…211 Table 7.10. Sumary Data for all Teachers f Post Program Question Data, Stages 5 & 6 …………………………………………………………………………………..212 Table 7.11. All Teachers’ STIR Table Results on Post Program Lesson……………...213 Table 7.12. Original STIR Results of Researcher and Sage…………………………...213
xxi
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1. Integral Look at Implementation of Inquiry-based Science Teaching in Wilber’s Four Quadrant Model…………………………………………………..34 Figure 2.2. Adaptation of Kegan’s (1994) Developmental Hierarchy………………......35 Figure 3.1. Initial Conceptual Framework of the MET Program Case Study…………..61 Figure 4.1. A Conceptual Framework for the Intentions of the MET Program…………85 Figure 5.1. Teacher Centeredness on Pre and Post Program Questionnaires………….122 Figure 5.2 Learner Centeredness on Pre and Post Program Questionnaires…………...123 Figure 7.1. Pre Program Questins by Cognitive Level………………………………...204 Figure 7.2. Pre Program Student & Teacher Questions, by Percentage……………….204
xxii
ABSTRACT
It is argued that teachers must experience inquiry in order to be able to translate it to their classrooms. The National Science Foundation’s (NSF’s) Research Experiences for Teachers (RETs) offer promising programs, yet scant empirical support documents the effectiveness of these programs. In this study, ten experienced, secondary science teachers were followed back to the classroom after a five-week, marine ecology RET, addressing the questions: How do teachers’ conceptions and enactment of classroom inquiry change after the program?; What are the program’s goals?; What accounts for these differences?; and What do these findings imply for future RETs? Data collected includes pre and post program questionnaires, audiotapes and videotapes of pre and post program teaching, post program STIR instrument responses, interviews, and field notes. The study found that an extensive, reflective program model, conducted by scientists who are teacher-centered, successfully conveyed the program model of inquiry. Post program, teachers’ conceptions of inquiry were more student centered, focused less on assessment and classroom management and more on authentic content, questions, and presentations, and incorporated program language. Question patterns during enactment shifted to fewer teacher questions, more student questions, and increased higher order questions by students and teachers. More procedural questions indicated role shifts. The STIR instrument fostered understanding of enactment and, with critical incidents analyses, highlighted underlying teacher value structures. Teachers with more theoretical sophistication and who had Rationalistic and Egalitarian value structures applied inquiry throughout their teaching and moved beyond contextual constraints. Implications suggest that those who develop and implement RETs need to be masterful “bridge builders” to help transition teachers and their learning back to the classroom. Reflection holds promise for illuminating teachers’ underlying values and goals and in gaining an understanding of teachers’ enactment. Curriculum materials and theoretical readings can assist teacher change. Assimilation of new knowledge does not necessarily lead to transformation of practices. Rather, this study found that teachers with values and goals
xxiii
that were compatible to the RET, as well as an accompanying high level of theoretical sophistication, moved toward transformational change.
xxiv
CHAPTER ONE OVERVIEW OF STUDY
Introduction
MET program journal question: Why did you choose to participate in the program? Teacher response: Several reasons. I am somewhat new to teaching science (B.S. English Ed) so I am always on the lookout for professional development in that area that doesn’t take place during the school year. I think everyone here, at least partially, is motivated by the thought of a decent summer paycheck, great environment, good hours. Max, 10th grade biology and 9th grade integrated science teacher, Journal response, June 2004
This dissertation is a qualitative research study of ten secondary science teachers who, for a wide variety of reasons, participated in the Marine Ecology for Teachers Program (MET), a field-based marine science program, in summer 2004. The purpose of the study was to understand how teachers who participated in this field-based research program conceptualized and enacted inquiry in their classrooms following the program; that is, how they thought about inquiry and what it looked like in their classrooms, and how their understandings changed from before their participation in the MET program. The teachers in this study ranged from a sixth-grade special education science teacher to a high-school eleventh-grade marine science teacher. At the time of my study, the program was in its fifth year of funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF). The program was originally funded under the NSF umbrella category teacher enhancement grants (now called research experiences for teachers). The grant project sought to give practicing secondary teachers an opportunity to participate in original research. The underlying rationale for the program was that most teachers lacked field-
1
based experiences with science or with practicing research scientists; it was assumed most of these teachers had an informal and perhaps even naïve understandings of “what science is about” (Granger & Herrnkind, 1999, p. 8). My dissertation study began with my own participation in the MET program, in the summer of 2003. Once my research project was approved, I became the 2004 van driver, helper, and observer of the program for all five weeks with the summer of 2004 cohort at Southern Central University’s (all names are pseudonyms) marine laboratory. Prior to the program, teachers videotaped one classroom science lesson and completed a reflective questionnaire. After the teachers participated in the MET program, I followed six of those who taught secondary science back into their classrooms and observed them for the days they carried out their post program inquiry-based lesson. The four teachers at a distance recorded and sent the videotape of their post program inquiry-based lesson to me. Through pre and post program questionnaires, videotapes of teaching, field notes, and follow-up personal interviews, I developed an understanding of these teachers’ pre and post program conceptions of inquiry-based teaching. Based on pre and post program videotapes of their teaching, I documented differences in how they changed their science lessons following the MET program. I also gained insight into why the teachers had carried out inquiry as they had through the use of a reflective Science Teacher Inquiry Rubric (STIR) instrument and interviews in which we discussed critical incidents in their classrooms. I found both of these to be useful ways to highlight the underlying values and goals of the teacher (Bodzin & Beerer, 2003).
Research Questions
1. What are the MET Program’s principal investigators’ conceptions of inquirybased science and their goals for the teachers in the MET program? 2. How have teachers changed in their conceptions of inquiry-based science teaching following their participation in MET Program? 3. How have teachers changed in their enactment of inquiry-based science teaching following their participation in MET Program?
2
4. What factors supported or constrained the teachers’ ability to carry out inquirybased instruction? 5. What implications do these findings have for other teacher research experiences or enhancement programs?
Significance of Research Questions
…[S]cientific method is the only authentic means at our command for getting at the significance of our everyday experiences of the world in which we live. It means that scientific method provides a working pattern of the way in which and the conditions under which experiences are used to lead ever onward and outward…Neither the ideas, nor the activities, nor the observations, nor the organization are the same for a person 6 years old as they are for one twelve or eighteen years old, to say nothing of the adult scientist (Dewey, 1938/1997, p. 88).
Back in 1938, John Dewey’s writings laid the groundwork for inquiry in school science. Dewey believed that children learn through activity. Extended, real life experiences in interaction with others were essential to students constructing their knowledge (Dewey, 1997). In the 1960’s, science inquiry was promoted by Joseph Schwab as a priority in Biological Science Curriculum Study (BSCS) science education materials (Settlage, 2003). In Schwab’s writings, he suggested that teachers use inquiry to teach students how to conduct investigations and that inquiry ought to be viewed as a science itself (as cited in Bodzin & Beerer, 2003). After the launching of Sputnik in 1957, science and science teaching became a national focus, which helped support the work of Bloom and others (Pinar, Reynolds, Slattery, & Taubman, 1995). Bloom’s The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook 1: The Cognitive Domain, formulated a scientific model for teaching objectives, followed by the 1973 Handbook of Research on Teaching, indicating four levels of inquiry. The levels were based on whether the problem, answers, and ways & means were given to students who were conducting investigations (Settlage, 2003). In the 1990’s, DeBoer, the American Academy for the
3
Advancement of Science (AAAS), and the National Research Council (NRC) recommended inquiry learning as a central strategy to engaging learners in science (AAAS, 1993; Bodzin & Beerer, 2003; NRC, 1996). Yet researchers do not widely agree upon precise definitions of inquiry. At special session on inquiry at the 2003 National Association of Researchers in Science Teaching (NARST), many participants raised this among a host of concerns about how difficult it is to implement inquiry in science classrooms (e.g., Abrams & Southerland, 2003; Anderson, 2003; Moss, 2003; Settlage, 2003). According the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996), the way to define inquiry depends upon the focus of the study. They call research that focuses on the teachers inquiry-based science teaching. What seems to have emerged from the research is that the implementation of inquiry is highly dependent on a host of contextual factors that include external aspects such as available resources, planning time, facilities, and school policies. But internal aspects, such as teachers’ values and beliefs, the school culture, content knowledge and student abilities are perhaps even more important (Anderson & Helms, 2001; Crawford, 2000; Feldman, 2000; Luft, 2001; Osborne, 1998). As Anderson and Helms (2001) write,
Past research points to teacher learning as being central to reform. This teacher learning is foundational for changes in student roles and work. Past research also establishes that the most important of this teacher learning is not in the arena of knowledge and skills, but in the arena of values and beliefs. While it is clear that changes in teacher values and beliefs are central to reform, the nature of these changes and the circumstances under which teachers personally can best reassess these values and beliefs are not fully understood (p. 13).
In addition to teachers’ beliefs and values, Gess-Newsome, Southerland, Johnston, and Woodbury (2003) tie teacher change into a constellation of factors including those related to content, curriculum, teacher thinking, and personal factors. Within a range of personal factors including knowledge of reform, pedagogical content knowledge, and content knowledge, they describe dissatisfaction with teaching to have a powerful role in teachers wanting to change. Their study highlights the individual at the center of change, and thus
4
the foundation of systemic change. Yet Feldman (2000) cites a range of personal practical theories that influence how teachers carry out teaching in their classrooms. Indeed, he reports that a teacher’s practice is not easily transformed. One of the goals of science educators at the national level is to implement inquiry. Yet there are many who suggest that such implementation is difficult and very specific to the teacher who is an individual, with a system of values, beliefs and way of thinking, in addition to all of the particulars of the context (Harding, 1991; Osborne, 1998). Inquiry, as with other forms of classroom reform, is hard to do in the classroom and requires the teacher in a particular context to embrace change (Meadows, in review; Southerland, Rose, & Blanchard, in review). As Anderson and Helms (2001) write,
The context in which these standards [NSES] are expected to take root is complex and not fully understood. The processes by which significant changes can be made in the “real world” situation share in this complexity and lack full meaning (p. 3).
Thus, research suggests the need to focus more on individual teachers in a specific classroom context as they attempt to carry out inquiry. Crawford (2000) writes, ‘[what are] needed are more reports of studies that focus on the day-to-day events in the real world of classroom life. Everyday events are often left to the imagination of the classroom teacher, ending in frustration from attempting inquiry-based strategies” (p. 918). This perspective is recounted in Meadow’s personal experiences, when trying to enact open-ended inquiry in a secondary science classroom (in review). Teacher professional development programs are a response to the need to assist teachers in making changes in their practices (Gess-Newsome et al., 2003; Borko, 2004). Yet historically, few studies have followed teachers back into the classroom after teacher enhancement programs, to make sense of how the experiences to gauge their impact (Frechtling et al., 1995). There is a literature base that has studied the enhancement programs themselves (Rahm, Miller, Hartley, Moore, 2003; Tabachnick & Zeichner, 1999), and some studies focused on college faculty or scientists (Schwartz & Lederman, 2004; Southerland et al., 2003; Switzer & Shriner, 2000), but the bulk of the research
5
articles are on college/preservice teachers (Crawford, 1999; Langford & Huntley, 1999; Lemberger, Hewson, & Park, 1999; Meyer, Tabachnick, Hewson, Lemberger, & Park, 1999; Schwartz, Lederman, Crawford, 2004; Seymour, Hunter, Laursen, & Deantoni, 2004; Trundle, Atwood & Christopher, 2002). Therefore, there is a paucity of literature that follows an entire group of teachers back to the classroom after professional development to document how they are attempting to carry out inquiry-based science teaching. Indeed, none of the studies that followed teachers focused on more than two teachers. All were case studies of one or two teachers (Bencze & Hodson, 1999; Crawford, 2000; Feldman, 2000; Kelly, Brown, & Crawford, 2000; O’Neill & Polman, 2004; Park & Coble, 1997). One exception was Abusharbain’s (2002) study, which focused on teachers’ and students’ attitudes toward constructivist approaches to teaching science. A study that focuses on ten teachers, all of whom participated in the same professional development experience, offers the promise of not only understanding the individual’s enactment of inquiry back in the classroom but also comparisons across the group. Given the individuals’ differences in values, goals, context and the host of characteristics discussed previously, one might anticipate a range of the ways in which inquiry is carried out by the teachers.
Personal Rationale
It is inconceivable to imagine I would spend nearly three years of my life on a project without having personal reasons for the journey. I began my teaching career as a high school biology teacher. I had always tried to have a laboratory-based approach to learning, and my own classroom was often a hub of activity and investigations. I did not at this time know the word “inquiry” or equate my lessons with inquiry-based science teaching. But what I found, time after time, was that the understanding I had hoped students would gain from these experiences was often lacking. I was not necessarily helping students to make the connection from what we were doing to the concepts I wanted them to learn through the investigations. In addition to my classroom teaching experiences, in 1997 I began a master’s degree in science education, which culminated in a degree in fall of 1999. During this
6
time, I supervised student teachers for three semesters and taught a methods course. Even though I had taught science at three schools, this additional entry into the classrooms of these 18 student teachers in a wide variety of schools reinforced how much fact- and textbook-based learning was taking place in most of these classrooms. As a graduate student, I had become aware of the National Science Education Standards (NSES) and the National Research Council’s (NRC) recommendation to teach science in ways that “sustain the curiosity of students and help them develop the sets of abilities associated with scientific inquiry” (2000, p. xii). I began my doctoral studies in spring of 2000, which brought with it the necessity to earn graduate science credits. At the time, I was living at a Nature Conservancy property on 6400 acres that were undergoing restoration from a slash pine plantation to a turkey oak-wiregrass-long leaf pine community. I conceived of the idea of a field study on the property to study the location of fox squirrel nests and see what factors might account for their locations, which I conducted with another doctoral student in science education (Blanchard, Hancock, & Stallins, in progress). I was surprised at several aspects of trying to get the study started. The first was how difficult it was to get a faculty member from Arts & Sciences to agree to supervise us. The second was how much was involved in figuring out how to design the study and what type of data collection would actually answer our question. This experience strengthened my understanding of the process of inquiry. Prior to this field experience, I thought that inquiry was the pursuit of answers to questions. However, in my research on fox squirrels, I explored every conceivable environmental factor that I could measure to try to figure out factors that might influence where fox squirrels located their nests. This study inspired a follow-up study to try to better measure the tree densities in the area, which had been a weakness in my first study, due primarily to time constraints. As a result of these research experiences, my original understandings of inquiry changed. When I heard about the MET program, I had already become familiar with inquiry and inquiry-based teaching and was intrigued with the notion of learning about the program’s model of inquiry. This interest spurred me to seek permission from the program coordinator, with the underlying understanding that my participation might lead to my studying the program for my dissertation study. Once I was accepted to the
7
program, I wondered what I would learn. What would be different from what I had done as a science teacher in my attempts at what I now knew to be a form of inquiry-based science teaching? Would it give me a more specific model of inquiry or a more expansive one? Indeed, it seemed as though the MET program held the potential of assisting teachers to gain experiences in inquiry. In their grant proposal, Granger and Herrnkind (1999) asserted that most teachers are teaching as they were taught and that teachers have little to no research experience. This argument resonated with me, not only in my classroom observations, but for myself. I had only one real research experience while teaching, provided in a summer teacher program at the University of Florida (called TRUE, Teacher Research Update Experience) in the summer of 1994. When I was approved to participate as a teacher in the 2003 Marine Ecology for Teachers (MET) program, I was actually a graduate student, not a classroom teacher. Therefore, I did not have a class of students with whom to teach a pre program science lesson and videotape the lesson for the MET program. I asked the program coordinator, whose wife Suzanna was a middle school science teacher, to teach a lesson in her classroom. Suzanna agreed, allowing me to teach not only the pre program lesson with her students, but also the follow-up lesson the fall after the 2003 MET program. During the MET program, we experienced a form of inquiry-based science modeled on Dr. “Cap” Baher’s (all names are pseudonyms) way of doing science. After we experienced it each day, we reflected on it and developed a template for what he had done in “teaching” the lesson and in what we had done as the “students.” That is, we dissected what he had done and grouped it into stages of inquiry, and these stages formed an outline (a template) for understanding the process. In the last week of the MET program, we took this template and adapted our pre program lesson (or an alternate science lesson) to this template, inserting new stages of the MET program model to our lesson if they had been missing, in preparation to mirror the program model in the post program lesson. The lesson I used for both my pre and post program lesson was the same, an investigation into what happens when you pop popcorn with the lid off of the pan. I had used this lesson in the past with both my middle and high school students as an
8
introduction to science process skills and a model of how to go about generating questions and seeking ways to investigate them. One of the reasons I liked the lesson was because it was a common thing most of the students had experienced, with a new twist; probably no one had ever seen popcorn pop with the lid off. During the last week of the MET program, I modified my lesson from the way I had previously done it. In the pre program lesson I had started the lesson by saying, “What if I were to pop this popcorn with the lid off? What do you think might happen?” I expected students to generate questions before they had observed the popcorn popping. In light of what I had experienced in the MET program, it now seemed silly to have students think up possible questions for a phenomenon they had not yet witnessed. Therefore, I now started the lesson with students observing the popcorn pop, before we discussed anything other than safety. As I re-taught the lesson to Suzanna’s sixth-grade students (it was a new group, as it was a new school year) students started by watching the popcorn popping with the lid off the wok. It popped for about eight minutes in the middle of a large painter’s tarp, with the students spread out in a large circle around the wok, about 6 feet back. The students were excited and animated as the popcorn popped above the wok and shot across the room. It was fun to watch their reactions to the event, what an earlier cohort of MET program participants had dubbed a provocative phenomenon. That is, the observations of a phenomenon (or an experience or observation in nature) provoked natural curiosity and interest in the students (J. Dutrow, personal communication, June 8, 2003). After watching the popcorn popping with the lid off the wok, students were asked to share observations or questions they had. Compared to when I had taught the lesson by first asking students to think of possible questions prior to watching the popcorn pop, I found that their observing the popcorn pop enhanced the detail and sophistication of students’ questions. Two such examples are, “Why does the oil pool around the edges of the wok as the popcorn pops?” and, “Did you notice that puff of smoke that is given off just before the first kernel starts to pop?” It seemed clear to me that this simple change in my lesson, through the MET program feedback, had improved the quality of the observations and the deepened the interest on the part of the students. Therefore, a small change had made a big difference in the quality of the research questions they generated.
9
As a result of both my inquiry-based science experiences during the summer MET 2003 program and this school-based experience, my conceptions of inquiry-based science teaching had become more sophisticated. Specifically, I now believed that the observation component (provocative phenomenon) was an important way to stimulate student interest, and to naturally stimulate the creation of student-generated questions. In my teaching, observations foregrounded students’ interests and generated questions. After the program, I was not regularly in touch with any of the program participants, other than a personal friend who lives several hours away. As I reflect back on my experiences teaching my revised lesson, and the changes in my conceptions of inquiry, I wondered if the MET experience had similarly affected other teachers. Had their conceptions of inquiry-based science teaching changed from how they had conceptualized inquiry-based science teaching prior to the MET program? Even if their conceptions had changed, would the teachers change their practices while teaching science in their classrooms? Later, I contacted five of the former participants as part of a research paper for another graduate class. Although the topic of our conversation was to be gender, through talking with these participants, I heard about many of the constraints the teachers encountered as they tried to implement inquiry-based science teaching in their classrooms. I began to ponder anew the constraints inherent in implementing inquirybased science teaching in a public school setting. Each of these five teachers was enthusiastic about their MET experiences and had found it was immensely interesting and beneficial. But when they came to implement inquiry, the teachers told me that they struggled to enact it with their students (Blanchard, 2003). Little research has been conducted on the impact of NSF funded programs on classroom teaching (Crawford, 2000; Frechtling et al., 1995). However, a follow-up study of four elementary school teachers’ enactment of inquiry following the 2003 MET program. Their study examined the teachers’ intentions and actions by looking at who held the power to generate knowledge in each of the stages of the derived template; the teacher or the student. A power analysis sheet was generated based upon the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 2000). In their study, the power shifted more toward the students in their enactment of inquiry following the program (Davis & Helly, 2004).
10
Exploring this notion of power raised new questions for me. Who would be the central focus in the classrooms of the teachers who had participated in the MET program: the students or the teacher?
Summary
In this chapter I describe my interest and involvement in the MET program, and the questions I investigate in this dissertation study. I briefly describe how, despite decades of promoting inquiry-based science teaching in classrooms, little is understood about the dynamics of adapting inquiry into real classrooms. The lens I am emphasizing is the role that teacher beliefs, values, and goals have in the implementation of inquirybased teaching. Chapter Two is a literature review that describes inquiry-based science teaching along a spectrum of inquiry, and builds an argument for the need for reform and the role of the teacher as reform agent. It also explains the role of the MET Program. I then describe the purpose of my dissertation study and the theoretical frameworks that focus the planned course the research. Chapter Three introduces my method and a description of my methodology, describes the MET Program over its five years, and introduces the teacher participants and their settings. In this chapter I explain how I collected and analyzed my data, and the how quality criteria demonstrate the goodness of my study. Chapters Four, Five, Six and Seven are the heart of this dissertation, for they are the findings chapters. Each of these is destined for independent publication, and as such, all contain a separate literature review, methods, findings, and discussion sections. Although this creates some occasional overlap in this dissertation, such as in methods descriptions, I believe the separate findings chapters best maintain the scholarship of the work contained within. In Chapter Four, I introduce the Principal Investigators of the MET program and analyze interview data to gain an understanding of their conceptions of scientific inquiry and their goals for the teachers in the MET program, as an atypical example of an RET. I discuss how their conceptions of inquiry compare to “typical” university scientists and
11
the science teachers in the study, as well as those described in the Standards. I also examine the PIs values underlying their goals for the program. Finally, the implications of their conceptions of inquiry are discussed in terms of professional development. In Chapter Five, teachers’ conceptions of inquiry are analyzed, and individual results are compared to see overall patterns in how the teachers changed. Their pre and post program questionnaires were analyzed using my Teacher-Learner Inquiry Continuum rubric, uncovering ways the focus of their lessons changed and the ways in which they were teacher-centered or student-centered. Additionally, their responses were highlighted through the new (MET program) vocabulary they used, as well as the ways in which they indicate how their current thinking is likely to impact future teaching of inquiry. The chapter ends with a discussion of why these changes occurred and implications for developing more sophisticated notions of inquiry-based science teaching. Chapter Six focuses more intensively on four teachers, with the goal of understanding what accounts for the differences in how these teachers conceptualized and enacted inquiry. Analysis of pre and post program questionnaire data support teachers’ conceptions of inquiry. Pre and post program classroom data are analyzed by question analysis (cognitive level, number, type, who originated it, stage of inquiry in which they were asked), and STIR instrument analysis (enactment of inquiry). Interview data were used for critical incident analysis to illuminate underlying teacher goals and values. Discussions of chapter findings are linked to teachers’ levels of sophistication of teaching and learning. In Chapter Seven, questions from pre and post program transcripts are analyzed, then compared across teachers to see if there were patterns to the type of questions and the stage of inquiry, the cognitive level of the questions, and patterns from pre to post program enactment. The STIR instrument highlights differences in how teachers’ understanding of what they had done related to their orientation to teaching, and the impact of the MET model on what the teachers actually enacted in their classrooms. The final chapter, Chapter Eight synthesizes findings from earlier chapters to analyze what factors constrained or supported teachers’ ability to carry out inquiry-based science teaching. I then discuss the main implications of my study. This is followed by a critique the theoretical frameworks I employed, testing the boundaries of these theories
12
and considering their usefulness. Finally, I discuss the limitations of my study and recommend directions of future research.
13
CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
Inquiry has a decades-long and persistent history as the central word used to characterize good science teaching and learning. But in spite of its seemingly ubiquitous use, many questions surround inquiry….How does one prepare a teacher to utilize this type of science education? What barriers must be overcome to initiate such science education in the schools? What dilemmas do teachers face as they move to this form of science education? The list of questions goes on (Anderson, 2002, p. 1).
Despite decades of effort and financial support very little inquiry-based science has been documented in classrooms (Frechtling et al., 1995; Keys & Bryan, 2001; Woodbury & Gess-Newsome, 2002). Anderson (2003) and others assert that most teachers don’t even know what inquiry is, nor do science educators agree on a definition (Abrams & Southerland, 2003; Moss, 2003; Settlage, 2003). A potential answer for why teachers are unfamiliar with inquiry: inquiry is not how the teachers learned science (Anderson, 2003; Granger & Herrnkind, 1999; Lappert, 1996). In their NSF grant proposal, Granger & Herrnkind (1999) write, Teachers teach science the way they learned science: through college courses based on lecture, textbook learning, memorization, and “cookbook” experimentation. Their lack of experience with scientific inquiry makes them extremely uncomfortable in the uncharted waters that inquiry-based instructional methods employ, and as a result they do not use them (p. 9).
What Granger and Herrnkind (1999) are alluding to is the lack of pedagogical content knowledge teachers have, given their lack of experiences with inquiry. Rather than seeking a firm definition of inquiry, Settlage (2003) suggests it might be easier to 14
define inquiry by what it is not: expository teaching with students’ receptive learning. Settlage reminds us of a 1973 Handbook of Research on Teaching in which inquiry is viewed in terms of its “levels of openness” (p. 31). In this hierarchical arrangement, Settlage points out that the ideal is presented as open-ended inquiry as opposed to a highly directed lesson. In his latest work, Settlage suggests using a skill set as a goal, the sum of which might be called inquiry, but which emphasizes an acquisition of skills that embrace science learning (Settlage, in review). In this chapter, inquiry-based science teaching is described and defined along a continuum. The role of teacher enhancement and research programs is explored as a way to help teachers implement inquiry. Finally, two developmental theories are proposed as ways to better understand the role of teachers’ beliefs and values in implementing reform measures in their classrooms.
What is Inquiry-Based Science Teaching?
Science has been taught too much as an accumulation of ready-made material, with which students are to be made familiar, not enough as a method of thinking, an attitude of mind, after the pattern of which mental habits are to be transformed (Dewey, 1910/1964).
Inquiry is a little word with a lot of meanings. A variety of organizations, as well as many authors who work and research in the area of inquiry, present conflicting definitions and positions. According to Windschitl (2004), inquiry-based reform measures make an assumption that there is a shared vision regarding the disciplinary practices in problem-solving. He writes, “It is further assumed that individual teachers have developed functional models of what it means to “do science” and are capable and willing to act as mentors of inquiry. Unfortunately, none of these assumptions is wellgrounded…” (p. 482). In looking at the National Science Education Standards (NSES), Anderson (2002) cautions, “It is well to remember that [the NSES] is a political document, based on an attempt to find consensus among the various educational, scientific and public
15
constituencies in the realm of science education” (p. 1). Given that, it seems likely that the document would reflect inquiry through the views of scientists, policy makers, and educators. Within the NSES, several types of inquiry are discussed: scientific inquiry, inquiry teaching, and inquiry as a learning activity (Anderson, 2002). Scientific inquiry “refers to the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work” (NRC, 1996, p. 23). This particular definition reflects an understanding of how science takes place, independent of how it is taught. A second definition of inquiry in the NSES is inquiry learning (Anderson, 2002). In this case, inquiry refers to a student’s active learning process. Inquiry is “something that students do, not something that is done to them” (NRC, 1996, p. 2). It is implied that this learning should reflect the same processes that take place in scientific inquiry, but that it happens in an educational setting. The third definition for inquiry in the NSES is inquiry teaching (Anderson, 2002). “Inquiry into authentic questions generated from student experiences is the central strategy for teaching science” (NRC, 1996, p. 31). What is clear is that science teachers should spend more time using inquiry-based instructional strategies in problem-solving contexts, and less time in didactic presentations of facts (Southerland, Gess-Newsome, & Johnston, 2003). Does this mean that every topic and every minute of class time should be spent doing inquiry-based science? No. Although inquiry-based science is important, this “does not imply that all teachers should pursue a single approach to teaching science” (NRC, p. 2). The NRC recognizes that an inquiry-based approach may not be developmentally appropriate for students who lack particular skills and may be unsuitable for certain types of content. Part of the problem with the lack of one precise definition of inquiry in the literature is that everyone who writes about inquiry is then required either to describe what they mean by inquiry or leave the reader uncertain or confused. For this study, I will use the basic categories of the NSES, yet refer to them as the following: Scientific inquiry, inquiry-based learning, and inquiry-based science teaching. Scientific inquiry will refer to the inquiry done by scientists in scientific contexts. “The phrase scientific inquiry refers to actions involved in scientists’ pursuit of knowledge, the manner in which
16
they seek explanations of natural phenomena” (Settlage & Southerland, in review). Inquiry-based learning is when students are in a classroom context conducting inquiry-based investigations (Anderson, 2003). According to the NSES, inquiry learning “refers to the activities of students in which they develop knowledge and understandings of scientific ideas, as well as an understanding of how scientists study the natural world” (NRC, 1996, p. 23). Inquiry-based science teaching focuses on how the teachers engage students in inquiry-based learning.
Contextual Issues
In this dissertation research study, I want to know how teachers translate their inquiry-based research experiences into science teaching with their students, back in the classroom. Although the MET program did not specifically define the term inquiry, the program was designed to give teacher participants field-based research experiences that, according to Kathleen Bransford, (a pseudonym) one of the program PIs, were at about an introductory college level (personal communication, May 25, 2005). What the program PIs meant by “scientific inquiry” was unclear, and thus became one of the research questions for this study (see Chapter Four for an analysis of these data). Despite the location of the MET program at a marine laboratory, the program principals were modeling and assisting in a type of inquiry that they hoped teachers would be able modify, take back to their classrooms, and do with their students. This would require the teachers to utilize content appropriate to the topics they taught and adjust the pedagogical elements to the developmental abilities of their students. As the NSF grant proposal stated (Granger & Herrnkind, 1999), the ultimate goal of the program was to “help transform secondary science classrooms into places where students…have the opportunity to use scientific inquiry and develop the ability to think and act in ways associated with inquiry” (p. 9). With the intention of achieving this goal, the two scientists in the program, Cap and Connie, kept in mind the same concerns they might have in mind with their college students; they did not want the research experiences to be too frustrating for the teachers. Both Connie and Cap knew that the teachers may have had limited research experiences,
17
as well as limited content knowledge, which meant they may need more support. Connie explained how they had modified their approach for the teachers when she said, “If we were really going to do [scientific] inquiry, we would let the teachers set up their experiments without our help, and they would fail” (personal communication, June 22, 2004). In categorizing the MET program as inquiry-based science teaching, I am not discounting the contextual differences between the marine laboratory and a science classroom. There are many differences, and these differences in context are potentially very important (Osborne, 1998). As a former science teacher and as a teacher participant in the 2003 cohort of the MET program, what immediately struck me about the marine laboratory was how amazingly informal it was. Almost everyone working there was a research scientist, and most wore essentially beach garb: sandals, shorts, and t-shirts. In the MET program, every day started with coffee and breakfast items, provided by teachers in a volunteer rotation throughout the five weeks of the program. The only students present were those who were part of a different program, which had its own staff and was kept geographically isolated from the MET teachers. A lack of bells ringing, a plethora of laboratory supplies, scientists on hand to answers most questions, and the teachers in the roles of students told me this was definitely not a public school setting. Osborne (1998) asserts that the specifics of the context in which a teacher teaches challenges the knowledge and changes it. This is because the current context during the teaching often presents “different and unique qualities” than the circumstances under which the teacher’s knowledge was created (p. 427). From my experiences in the 2003 MET program, I knew the teachers had talked about and wondered on a daily basis how to adapt what they learned in the MET program to their work with students. Teacher concerns included such things concerns as what content they currently taught might be suitable for inquiry-based teaching, how to respond to student questions during inquiry, and to how to let students use observations to come up with a research project while making it something that would work in a classroom setting. Osborne’s (1998) assertion is that through teaching, the teacher becomes a learner. A new setting and the unique qualities of the teaching circumstances are different from those in which the knowledge was created, thus requiring additional
18
learning by the teacher when she implements the changes. Applying Osborne’s notions to the transfer of knowledge the teachers obtained in the MET program to their classrooms means that the setting will cause the knowledge to be, using Osborne’s word, “inadequate.” An earlier study of four elementary teachers from the 2003 cohort group discussed context as an issue in the study of elementary teachers from the program (Davis & Helly, 2004). My awareness of and interest in these contextual differences led me to the methodology I used for this research, Naturalistic Inquiry, which is described in detail in Chapter 3.
Locating MET’s Inquiry Model on an Inquiry Continuum
In the context of the MET program, the program staff in the MET program (scientists, teacher specialist, coordinator, and director) acted essentially as the teachers and the teacher participants acted as the students. Therefore, I have situated the inquiry modeled in the program in the category of inquiry-based science teaching. Table 2.1 includes a range of how inquiry-based science teaching is observed and described in a number of different studies by various science education researchers.
Scientific or Open-Ended Inquiry One end of the range of inquiry-based science teaching is open-ended, whereby research is run independently and tends to be based on real-world problems. This is the inquiry-based science that most resembles scientific inquiry. On the other end of the spectrum is quite-guided inquiry-based science teaching, which is instructor-directed and didactic. Another term for this is structured inquiry, which has been described as students engaging in hand-on activities and drawing conclusions, but still following a plan laid out by the teacher (Hinrichsen, Jarrett, & Peixotto, 1999, p. 1). This resembles more traditional science teaching, such as in a “canned” laboratory. One argument in the literature is that inquiry-based science teaching should be as similar to real scientific inquiry as possible. Chinn & Malhotra (2002) call this authentic inquiry, and I placed it at the open-ended inquiry end of inquiry-based science teaching in Table 2.1, very close to Schwartz & Lederman’s scientific inquiry. The authentic inquiry
19
described by Chinn & Malhotra (2002) refers to the type of research in which scientists may generate their own questions, select variables, develop controls, make observations, develop theories, and conduct multiple studies (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002). A parallel term for this, which discusses students doing the inquiry, is student-initiated inquiry, in which students generate their own questions and design their own investigations
Open-ended inquiry -------------------------------------------------------------- Quite-guided inquiry
Table 2.1 Summary of Sample Inquiry-based Science Teaching Characteristics and Designations. Researchers Designation Characteristics Chinn & Malhotra Simple school (2002) inquiry
Bencze & Hodson (1999)
More authentic science
Granger & Herrnkind (1999)
Scientific inquiry, Research Project #1
Crawford (2000)
Collaborative inquiry
Rahm, Miller, Hartley, & Moore (2003)
Authentic science
Granger & Herrnkind (1999)
Scientific inquiry Research Project #2
Chinn & Malhotra Authentic inquiry (2002)
Schwartz & Lederman (2004)
Scientific inquiry
Research question provided, investigate 1 or 2 variables, follow simple procedure in classroom, single control, told how to set up experiment, told what to measure, report raw data, simple reasoning. Students explore personal understandings of phenomena, formulate questions and hypotheses, identify problems, seek possible solutions. Discuss and criticize alternate ideas. Explore alternate ideas through hands-on inquiry. Participants led to ask research questions in field about one topic, helped with honing questions, helped with experimental design, materials, and presentation. Authentic problems, grapple with data, some outside data collection, collaboration, model scientist behaviors, student ownership, connection to society through presentations. Negotiate research project, sustained involvement over time, ownership by participants, collaborate with scientists, schoolyard plots. Observations in field lead to student-generated questions, craft explanations, devise a research protocol with help, collect & analyze data, present findings, discuss interpretations. Generate own research questions, many possible variables, analog models, multiple controls, multiple variables, avoid bias, constantly question, arguments Multiple methods, multiple purposes, argumentation is central to developing new knowledge, handling of anomalous data, distinctions between data and evidence, a community of practice
20
(Hinrichsen et al., 1999). Similarly, Switzer & Shriner (2000) stress the roles of primary literature, creativity, and critical thinking in scientific investigations. O’Neill & Polman (2004) focus on project-based science and the value of allowing students to have unsuccessful experiences with investigations to understand more meaningfully how science is accomplished. Each of these descriptions of scientific or authentic inquiry contains all of the Essential Features of Classroom Inquiry, as put forth by the NSES (Olson & LouckesHorsely, 2000, p. 29). Alan Colburn identified this as open inquiry, which aligns with Level 3 of Schwab’s system (Settlage & Southerland, in review). Schwab’s meaning referred to the scientific inquiry performed by adult scientists, and the ways they go about studying the natural world.
Guided or Collaborative Inquiry According to Colburn, guided inquiry allows for student interpretations, perhaps data gathering methods, and in general allows students to make choices about what they will do based upon their competencies. This correlates to Schwab’s Levels 1 and 2 (Settlage & Southerland, in review), depending on whether the students were told ways to gather data (Level 1) or not (Level 2). In both Level 1 and Level 2 inquiry, the students interpret the results of the research. Research by Crawford (2000) and Rahm, Miller, Hartley, and Moore (2003) describe investigations and student research that shares the characteristics of guided inquiry. Both of the research projects of the teachers in the MET program fell in this range on the inquiry continuum, and thus were located in Table 2.1 adjacent to the MET research projects. In a different study, Rahm et al. (2003) uses case studies of face-to-face partnerships between teachers, students, and scientists to better understand how authentic, real world science can best be brought to students. They assert, “…school science is best perceived as a form of science practice that by its nature will always be different from what real scientists do” (p. 739). This suggests that the goal of authentic education is to provide students with access to scientific activities rather than trying to make scientists out of them. This is thus a different argument in the literature: that school science cannot be scientific inquiry, yet can contain many of the processes of science.
21
Rahm et al.’s (2003) argument is a large distinction from the more amorphous inquiry requested by the MET program. As an experienced secondary science teacher, Rahm’s article resonates for me, and the idea of introducing components or skills of inquiry in an additive way, as students are ready, also seems like a realistic goal (Settlage, in review). The notion that scientific inquiry, open-ended inquiry, is not really possible in the classroom in resonated with my experiences that inquiry was elusive in real classrooms, an idea that I had encountered in science education essays (Moss, 2003; Settlage, 2003). This middle position on the inquiry continuum, guided inquiry is perhaps the most realistic version of classroom inquiry (Hinrichsen et al., 1999). This model is less openended than the authentic inquiry described by Chinn and Malhotra (2002) and has features similar to Crawford’s (2000) research of a high school ecology teacher’s inquirybased science teaching. Crawford called this inquiry collaborative inquiry, due to the project-based nature of the field-based research projects science in Jake’s ecology classroom. The Rahm et al. (2003) research studied two programs that had some similar characteristics to the MET program. Both of the programs in the Rahm et al. studies were face-to-face teacher-scientist and student-scientist partnership programs that were based in authentic contexts, similar to the MET program. The scientists worked with the participants to try to carry out scientific investigations in real world settings. In the MET program, the scientists were there for consultation, and the teachers carried out their own studies. In the Rahm et al. studies, the research emerged from the interaction of the scientists and the teachers/students. Therefore, the research done in Rahm et al. (2003) was created more collaboratively between the participants than the research done in the first MET program research project, when the teachers were led to a general research question. By contrast, in the next MET research project, Project #2, the teacher participants were allowed to choose a topic that was not predetermined, and they were assisted less in the decisions they made at each stage of the investigation. Partly this was a function of the learning that had already taken place in the teachers, but it was also an intentional shift by the program staff to move the teachers toward more independence and greater “power” (Davis & Helly, 2004).
22
. Structured Inquiry or Simple School Science Colburn used the phrase structured inquiry as descriptive of learning activities by students in which the teacher has provided the methods and the answer. This corresponds to Schwab’s Level 0 inquiry (Settlage & Southerland, in review). This is the type of investigation that involves clear guidance on the part of the teacher, from giving the student the question through walking through an expected conclusion. Chinn and Malhotra’s (2002) simple school inquiry describes what many of us equate with the “cookbook labs” mentioned in the MET grant proposal (Granger & Herrnkind, 1999). Students are busy working in the laboratory, but are following a list of instructions and the experience often involves little reasoning (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002). Project #1 of the MET program lies closer to Chinn and Malhotra’s (2002) simple inquiry, located at the far end of Table 2.1. Regardless of what form of inquiry-based science teaching a teacher enacts, implementing inquiry-based instruction places many demands on a classroom teacher, often requiring a significant shift in what the teacher is doing (Anderson, 2002; Crawford, 2000; Davis & Helly, 2004; Windschitl, 2004). Providing teachers with professional development and other support have been important ways to help teachers implement inquiry-based science teaching (Bodzin & Beerer, 2003; Davis & Helly, 2004; Granger & Herrnkind, 1999; MacIsaac & Falconer, 2002). Yet, as many studies have reported, little has been documented with regard to actual reform in terms of changes in classroom teaching (Frechtling et al., 1995; Woodbury & Gess-Newsom, 2002).
Research on Reform Efforts
In Teacher Enhancement Programs: A Perspective on the Last Four Decades, Frechtling, Sharp, Carey, and Westat (1995) examine the nature of programs that have been funded over the last 40 years. One of the largest financial supporters of science education reform is the National Science Foundation (NSF). This is the agency that provided the funding for the MET grant, under the category teacher enhancement grant. “NSF-funded teacher enhancement projects vary widely, but share a focus on the
23
classroom as the key to educational improvement” (Frechtling et al., 1995, p. 15). Historically, NSF and the Department of Education (DOE) have tended to fund grants that are more field-based and teacher-driven. Other major players in grant funding include the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the National Institute of Health (NIH). Grants from these agencies have historically been expert-driven and more focused on the talents of the particular agency. But reform concerns have changed over time, and goals of attaining teacher-proof curricula of the 1950’s have now switched to a current focus on systemic change that highlights: 1) scientific literacy by all students; 2) new standards for mathematics and science education; and 3) professional development for teachers that causes students to think, reason, and make discoveries, promote group work, and heterogeneous classrooms (Frechtling et al., 1995). Typical goals of the programs investigated by Fretchling et al.’s review include: •
Increasing teacher knowledge
•
Providing teacher renewal and opportunity for networking
•
Increasing leadership and empowerment
•
Changing classroom practice
•
Increasing student interest and achievement
•
Enhancing minority participation.
Progress reports and evaluations, the typical way of reporting out grant work typically includes components such as: description of the work completed; identification of problems; involvement of partners; how the research contributed to our current knowledge; and a summary of findings (Blanchard, Southerland, & Granger, 2006; Granger & Herrnkind, 2002). There is a growing consensus that professional development experiences are “fragmented, intellectually superficial, and do not take into account what we know about how teachers learn” (Borko, 2004). According to the 1994 General Accounting Office (GAO), the evaluations told us “very little” about the impact of federally funded teacher enhancement programs (Frechtling et al., 1995, p. 21). Self-reports by teachers have reported: 1) high (70-90%) 24
satisfaction with the training; 2) increased teacher confidence about knowledge and skills; 3) positive impact on teachers’ feelings of professional renewal and career satisfaction; and 4) empowerment and ability to take on leadership roles in their home schools and to act as disseminators of information. What was almost completely lacking were data that showed a connection of the new skills transferred to classroom practice, and increased student achievement and attitudes toward mathematics and science. The study concluded that “we know far too little about what our investment in such programs is returning” (p. 28) and contends that current evaluation practices do not provide for any real accountability, such as what is happening in classrooms. What is suggested by these studies is the need for research on professional development experiences that goes beyond the superficial and tries to get at deeper issues, such as those related to real change on the part of the teacher.
The Rational Aspect to Change In my study, I focus primarily on the teacher as an agent of reform. The focus of this research study is teachers learning about scientific inquiry in a professional development experience. An underlying assumption of the MET program is that teachers need to change what they are doing, and that the purpose of the program is to help develop new skills and knowledge among the participants (Granger & Herrnkind, 1999). Science itself is a rational process, one in which the participant is an active participant and the knowledge is arrived at through critical means (Osborne, 1998). Many of the skills described by the 52 scientists in Harwood, Reiff, & Phillipson’s study (2002) described doing inquiry as maintaining a focus on process, analytical skills, and critical thinking. Often-mentioned characteristics of scientific investigations included meaningful, testable questions, systematic investigations, and results that were verifiable. All of these processes are rational, as is science, and therefore using an inquiry-based model requires a teacher to be able to think rationally (Settlage & Southerland, in review). Indeed, when teachers go into the classroom and decide what to teach and how they will teach it, they are essentially making claims as to what they determine to be appropriate, which is a rational process (Apple, 1979, and McNeil, 1988, as cited in Osborne, 1998).
25
Once teachers have decided what they are going to teach, they try it out. In the process of teachers, teachers often think about what they are doing as they do it. When teachers reflect as they are teaching, they are doing what Dewey (1910) and Schön (1988) called “reflection-in-action.” Reflective thinking, according to Kegan (1994) requires that an individual is able to stand apart from him or herself or abstract themselves from themselves to observe what they are doing. This requires a level of cognitive development he calls “4th order of consciousness” (p. 91). This ability is generally not developed in individuals until they are adults, and sometimes not even as adults. For teachers to change to using inquiry-based science teaching, they must be able to think about what they are doing, reflect on how it is different from what they were doing, and make the changes in their teaching. Change, therefore, requires the teacher to be able to make rational decisions about their teaching. Habermas (1989) described this as a way to judge validity claims of others, and as a way to then decide what to accept. His validity claims situate the learner in a particular social context, as the MET program does. In it, the MET teachers encounter new experiences and if they have the ability to abstract themselves from the process, they then can reflect upon the experiences and make decisions as to what they intend to change. Beck and Cowan (1996) discuss this level of rationality as a requirement to shift from an authoritarian level to the rational level of their model. That is, if teachers have been operating as the knowers in their classroom, they have been operating at an authoritarian level in the Integral Spiral Dynamics model (Wilber, 2000). If, on the other hand, they have been acting as acquirers of knowledge, using the experimental and changing knowledge that occurs in science (Harwood et al., 2002; Osborne, 1998) and in interactions with others (Dewey, 1939, as cited in Osborne, 1998), then they have been operating at a rationalistic level in their classroom. Osborne argues, “[T]he knowledge base of teachers is both the foundation upon which they are able to teach and a vehicle through which they are able to learn, because through teaching they can question that knowledge” (pp. 427-8). Too, we must recognize there are many affective aspects to teacher change, as well. The next section details research studies that highlight the importance of understanding teachers’ beliefs and values in their teaching.
26
Teacher Beliefs and Values Keys and Bryan (2001) review a body of literature showing that curriculum reform efforts are shaped and altered by teachers’ beliefs and understandings of the local context. In McRobbie & Tobin’s (1995) study, the culture of a high school science classroom included a set of beliefs about rigor, examination preparation, transmission, and efficiency that impeded reform. Keys and Bryan show evidence which supports the notion that the efficacy of reform efforts rests largely with teachers. Their literature review also suggests that more research is needed in the area of teachers’ beliefs, knowledge, and practices of inquiry-based science. Keys and Bryan (2001) write, “Research on the roles and knowledge of teachers in implementing inquiry in the classroom will have a broad impact on science education because such studies will reflect what may be realistically accomplished on a large scale” (p. 642). This certainly seems to suggest that contextually-based studies on teachers’ beliefs, knowledge, and practices as they try to implement inquiry are necessary to determine what is realistic in a classroom. Southerland et al. (2003) research focuses on reform measures with college science professors. It shows that the teaching practices of three scientists who taught college courses aligned more closely with individual beliefs than with the goals of the course. Southerland et al. argue that limited pedagogical content knowledge reinforced some of the professors’ traditional approaches to science instruction, which occurred despite planning and explicit course goals. The authors argue that scientists, like students, “need exposure to appropriate teaching practices and scaffolding to develop their pedagogical content knowledge for teaching science” (p. 688). This study suggests that it is much harder to implement reform than previously thought. The authors recommend that reform efforts should extend longer periods of time and that additional support may be needed. This would give the participants time to reflect on, change, and align their beliefs with those of the reform effort, as well as acquiring models of practice. Teacher reflection and time for that reflection is necessary for the teachers to decide to change their beliefs.
27
Crawford's (2000) study at the high school level describes inquiry as both a content and a pedagogy, situated in a particular context. Her study about a high school teacher in an ecology classroom suggests that the roles of the teacher in an inquiry-based classroom are complex, changing, and greater than in a traditional classroom. Rather than supplying a “teacher-proof curriculum,” she suggests that we “need to turn our attention on how to best support teachers in embracing the essence of inquiry” (p. 935). This study reinforces the importance of content in how the teacher is able to manage inquiry-based science teaching. Gess-Newsome et al. (2003), and Feldman (2000) highlight the importance of teachers wanting to change. Teachers have to make the decision to change for classroom reform to take place. From their study with three science professors, Gess-Newsome et al. argue that individual change is the foundation of systemic change, but that change can take a long time. Feldman’s (2000) study focuses on two physics teachers who experienced a new physics curriculum. His study highlights the desire of one of the teachers to change, based upon his dissatisfaction, as critical to his using the curriculum materials and changing his practice. Sowell also found the role of dissatisfaction to be critical to a teacher wanting to change her practice (Sowell, Southerland, & Blanchard, 2006). Harwood, Hansen, & Lotter (2005) find confidence and beliefs as key predictors as to whether a teacher will change their teaching practices. Parke and Coble’s (1997) transformational model with middle-school teachers adds the aspect of the teachers’ involvement in the process as a factor. Indeed, through active involvement in their professional development experience (redesigning curricula, reflecting about their practice, and learning more about science content), the teachers in this study provide evidence that teachers who are actively involved in the reform process are more likely to change. This harkens back to Dewey’s work (1939, as cited in Osborne), in which the quality of experiences in a social context is at the root of effective practice. Anderson (2002) asserts that reform requires changes in teacher beliefs and values. He writes,
28
It is common to talk about barriers or obstacles that must be overcome for teachers to acquire an inquiry approach to teaching. In fact, they have been discussed in the literature for a long time….An additional helpful word, however, is dilemmas. The former words imply something external to the teacher, but much of the difficulty is internal to the teacher, including beliefs and values related to students, teaching, and the purposes of education. Teachers considering new approaches to education face many dilemmas, many of which have their origins in their beliefs and values. It is not unusual to think of learning to teach through inquiry as a matter of learning new teaching skills. It is that, but it is also much more. Teachers encounter both barriers and dilemmas (2002, p. 7).
Anderson thinks that the task of inquiry-based science teaching must be addressed in the political as well as the cultural context of the school, at a level that "includes central attention to beliefs and values" (p.8). This literature provides a host of reasons to explain Woodbury and GessNewsome’s (2002) contention that despite the passage of 100 years and initiation of scores of educational reforms, little has changed in education. Woodbury and GessNewsome attribute the situation to the very complex, systemic nature of the school culture. In order for change to occur, interconnected structures of school systems must change, reform must effect changes in the roles of teachers and students, and these steps must take place through the teacher.
Theoretical Frameworks
What accounts for the fact that some teachers change their practices as a result of reform measures, while others do not? The literature from the last section deals with the importance of teacher beliefs and values. Past research indicates students and teachers are resistant to change when the change does not conform to the individual’s value structures (Davis & Blanchard, 2004). Another explanation in the literature deals with a broad set of factors called personal practical theories.
29
Personal practical theories are another way that teachers' images of their roles and the roles of students, methods and their underlying purpose in instruction, and learning have been described in the literature (Feldman, 2000; Gess-Newsome et al., 2003). As Gess-Newsome et al. describe it,
These personal practical theories both shape and constrain teachers’ interactions with reform. For instance, the selection of course content and its related pedagogical structure is an outcome of a personal practice theory, providing insight into each teacher’s views of teaching, learning, and the course goals (p. 35).
Another term in the science education literature that has been used that incorporates teachers’ value structures is worldviews. Cobern (1996 as cited in Yalaki, 2004) defines worldviews as long-held assumptions and presuppositions that “exert a broad influence over one’s thinking” (p. 542). He suggests that worldviews provide “a non-rational foundation for thought, emotion, and behavior” (p. 584), therefore influencing how one responds to experiences. Cobern’s focus is on how students’ conflicts between what they understand and they learn in school creates conflicts and undermines learning (Yalaki, 2004). Cobern believes that the differences he observes in teachers’ and students’ worldviews hinders understanding. This is particularly true when teachers with one worldview try to change a student’s conception who does not share the same worldview. In the science classroom, Cobern explains, the science is essentially viewed as a foreign culture to the students and the conceptualizations are associated with that culture. Thus, the new science conceptions are often rejected for the familiar understandings already held by the students. Cobern suggests that learning about worldviews could help teachers better help their students learn science in a way that does not conflict with the students’ worldviews. Cobern’s work was actually based on Lakato’s work, and adopted by conceptual change theorists as a basis for organizing major conceptions and looking at patterns of paradigmatic changes in science (Southerland et al., in press). Cobern’s worldview concept is similar to the notion of conceptual ecology in the literature, and “includes the
30
learner’s epistemological commitments, anomalies, metaphors, analogies, metaphysical beliefs, knowledge of competing conceptions, and knowledge from outside the field” (Demastes, Good, & Peebles, 1995). Although Cobern argues that worldviews can change through experience, he considers them to be quite stable. Therefore, even as Cobern acknowledges that worldviews are able to change, he does not provide a framework for the developmental aspects of worldview (Yalaki, 2004).
Integral Spiral Dynamics
The psychology of the mature human being is an unfolding, emergent, oscillating spiraling process marked by progressive subordination of older, lower-order behavior systems to newer, higher-order systems as man’s existential problems change (Beck & Cowan, 1996, p.3).
Cobern’s worldview model is descriptive and non-hierarchical. Its purpose is on simply understanding worldviews and how differing worldviews between teacher and learner in the classroom may interfere with learning (Yalaki, 2004). Beck and Cowan (1996) take Cobern’s ideas and develop them into a worldview model that is evolutionary in the sense that individuals are understood to move along a spiral to actively develop. In their model, called Integral Spiral Dynamics, worldviews are called value structures (Wilber, 2000). According to Beck and Cowan, what an individual values in a particular area (developmental strand) of their life determines his or her developmental stage in that context (Wilber, 2000). At a particular developmental level, individuals have particular capacities and coping strategies that guide their actions (Beck & Cowan, 1996). The four levels in Table 2.1 are applicable to the value structures of the teachers in this study (and most Americans, according to Wilber, 2000): Egocentric (Red), Conformist/Authoritarian (Blue), Achievement-oriented/Rationalistic (Orange), and Egalitarian (Green). In a simplistic presentation of this model, humans develop through levels that alternately focus on the individual (I am the most important) and on the group (my
31
family/church/country is most important). Development is caused by experiences that are appropriate for the level of the individual. Table 2.2 Summary of Four Value Structure Codes [Worldviews] (adapted from Davis & Blanchard, 2004). Description Learning Style Egocentric (Red)
Truth is whatever is currently happening. Motto: “Do what makes you feel good.” Live for the present. Survival of the fittest. Respect and reputation matter more than anything else. Focus is on individual.
Authoritarian (Conformist; Blue)
Truth is absolute and dependent upon authorities or experts to determine. Motto: “Sacrifice self to reach goals and live well.” Answers are delivered through a chain of command. Individuals motivated by duty, honor, and country. Focus is on the group and individuals are less important.
Rationalistic (AchievementOriented; Orange)
Truth is individualistic and independently determined through evidence. Material gain, individual achievement, and competitive advantages are valued. Motto: “Express self to reach goals and live well.” Entepreneurism and planning are ways to reach goals. Individuals motivated by opportunities, progress and achievement. Focus is on the individual.
Egalitarian (Green)
Truth is relativistic. Interdependence and human bonds are most important. Motto: “Sacrifice self for all to prosper in unity.” Motivated to join others to build consensus and share feelings to make things better now. Reveres human rights and dignity for all. Wants more participation, equality, and liberation of the oppressed. Focus is on the group, but individuals are important.
Escape domination by others through force or threat. Immediate rewards and lack of guilt. Primary learning is experiential Punishment for errors. Rightful authorities. Moralistic direction. Possibility of deferred rewards in future. Primary learning theory is behaviorism. Trial-and-error experiments in which success brings anticipated gains. Competitive gaming with high-tech, high status tools. Primary learning theory is radical constructivism. Explore feelings and learn by watching others’ actions. Share here-and-now experiences to enhance interpersonal skills. Primary learning theory is social constructivism.
The Integral Spiral Dynamic model looks like an upward rainbow spiral. A value structure is “at once a psychological structure, value system, and a mode of adaptation, which can express itself in numerous ways, from worldviews to clothing styles to governmental forms” (Wilber, 2000, p. 47). Levels with an individualistic focus are Egocentric (Red) and Achievement-Oriented/Rationalistic (Orange). Levels with a group focus are Conformist/Authoritarian (Blue) and Egalitarian (Green). Once a 32
developmental stage has been reached, there are earlier and new “permanently available capacities and coping strategies that can, once they have emerged, be activated under the appropriate life conditions” (Wilber, 2000, pp. 47-48). (For the purposes of this dissertation, I will now refer to the levels respectively as: Egocentric, Authoritarian, Rationalistic, and Egalitarian. Individuals evolve up the spiral through levels of development. Each level requires different abilities in order to continue to develop. For instance, in order to develop from Authoritarian (Blue) to Rationalistic (Orange), it is necessary to be able to think rationally. Because each level both includes and transcends the previous levels, it is possible to still operate at previous developmental levels at times. For example, in stressful situations, individuals who tend to operate at an Rationalistic level (Orange) may operate at an Egocentric (Red) level (See Table 2.2 for descriptions of four value structure codes). Let us consider the example of a science teacher who is trying to implement inquiry-based science teaching in her science classroom. Faced with an unruly classroom management situation, a teacher who typically fosters student individuality may revert to a very traditional, authoritarian model. Yet individuals rarely operate entirely at a single value level: in differing areas (what Wilber calls “strands”) of their lives, they use differing strategies. Therefore, in this research, I discuss the teachers’ value structures as they relate to their classroom teaching. I see this model as a useful tool for understanding teachers’ values as a basis for how they embrace inquiry-based science teaching. And understanding teachers’ values and beliefs is important in understanding what can realistically be accomplished with inquiry-based reform efforts and how to best carry out that reform (Anderson, 2002; Crawford, 2000; Harwood et al., 2004; Key & Bryan, 2001; Parke & Coble, 1997). The reason this is a useful referent for the MET program is that teachers’ value structures in their teaching strand very much relates to how they envision their roles and the roles of their students. In a similar manner to how Cobern (1996, as cited in Yalaki, 2004) sees problems with learning when teachers’ worldviews differ from those of their students, so it can be with the teachers who participate in the MET program. If a teacher
33
is operating at primarily an Authoritarian level, it may be a mismatch with the Rationalistic level of inquiry-based science. That is, the ability and inclination to carry out inquiry-based science teaching depends on an individual being at least at the Rationalistic level of development. Prior to that, it will be difficult for a teacher to give up his or her authority in the classroom. What is underlying the Spiral Dynamics is its “integral” part. Wilber’s Integral model underlies Integral Spiral Dynamics. The model includes four quadrants, each representing common ways of doing research that people used in different fields to understand the world around them. The ways of knowing are “exterior and interior” and “individual and collective.” It is helpful to look at a drawing of the model to see it as you read about it (Figure 2.1).
I Upper Left Teacher’s beliefs & values Interior (subjective) Individual (Intentional) Quality criteria: Truthfulness
IT Upper Right Teacher’s enactment Exterior (objective) Individual (Behavioral) Quality criteria: Truth
WE Lower Left Cultural components Interior (inter-subjective) Collective (Cultural) Quality criteria: Justness
ITS Lower Right Influence of MET program Exterior (inter-objective) Collective (Social) Quality criteria: Functional fit
Figure 2.1. Integral Look at Implementation of Inquiry-based Science Teaching in Wilber’s Four Quadrant Model (based on Wilber, 2000). The research interest, the questions being asked, and the quality criteria being used in each quadrant are different. Generally, different research methods are preferred in each quadrant; however, some methods can be used across these quadrants. Naturalistic Evaluation, my research methodology, is an example that can work in each of the quadrants. I explain the details of this in Chapter Three. 34
The four quadrants can be addressed as upper left, upper right, lower left, and lower right. I am taking an integral look at what supports or inhibits implementation of inquiry-based science teaching in schools. In the upper left quadrant are the beliefs and values of the teachers. In the lower left are the cultural components of the school, such as needing to “cover content.” In the upper right are the actions of the teacher as she enacts inquiry-based science teaching, such as the questions she asks. In the lower right are the technical and organizational aspects of the classroom, the school, and county policies, for example. Integral Spiral Dynamics situates change of an individual in a socio-cultural context. My second developmental framework that undergirds this study is a psychological model of individual development.
Developmental Theory Kegan is a developmental psychologist who studied under Perry at Harvard University. Piaget’s work focuses primarily on cognitive development, and therefore is helpful in understanding the cognitive aspects of conceptual change (Feldman, 2000; Wilber, 2000). Unlike Piaget’s primary focus on the cognitive, Kegan’s work has focused on change and adult learning. Kegan’s developmental theory addresses “the forms of meaning regulation, the transformation of consciousness, the internal experience of these processes, [and] the role of the environment…” (Kegan, 1994, p. 7). In his theory, he describes that as we develop, we evolve in the ways we organize experience. We do not replace these ways of organizing experience as we grow, but they are “subsumed into more complex systems of mind” (p. 9). Therefore, in explicitly focusing on the processes of change, his model of development describes change as a process at the level of beliefs and consciousness. When a person changes, he does not just change what he knows, “but the way he knows.” In Kegan’s psychological model (Figure 2.2), change is at the level of consciousness. Changing behavior depends upon whether we have the psychological development to do so, whether we want to, how we see the world, and changing our very beliefs.
35
lead to lead to lead to Beliefs/———→How one understands——→Feelings ———→ Behavior Consciousness the world (Worldviews)/ (Values/goals) Figure 2.2. Adaptation of Kegan’s (1994) Developmental Hierarchy Using Kegan’s model, in order for teachers from the MET program to change their teaching, they have to understand the inquiry-based science teaching that is modeled, agree with the roles of teachers and students in the model, and believe and value that way as the best way to teach. Changing methods require that teachers change how they know teaching, what they believe it to be. Additionally, wanting to change must not be confused with being able to change. Shulman (1986) suggests that teachers also must have the pedagogical content knowledge to be able to convert what they know into their practice. Thus, changing practice is far more difficult than simply changing actions. As Davis, Sumara, and Luce-Kapler (2000) write, “Transforming practice, then, is hinged on the exercise of uncovering core assumptions, and webs of beliefs about what knowledge is…what learning is…[and] what schools do” (p. 41). This resonates with many studies that have found how difficult it is for teachers to change (Gess-Newsome et al., 2003; Harwood et al., 2004; Keys & Bryan, 2001; Woodbury & Gess-Newsome, 2002). In this dissertation, I hope to tease out the differences in changes between those teachers who change their actions in the context of carrying out the new lesson, but not necessarily their underlying values and beliefs. I would like to borrow the Piagetian term assimilation for teachers who are able to translate the experience from the MET laboratory to enacting a lesson in their classroom in an inquiry-based fashion, yet do not change in a fundamental way (Wilber, 1995). An example of this might be a teacher who is able to carry out the post program inquiry-based lesson well, yet who does not incorporate other aspects of inquiry into their teaching. In collaboration with other evidence from a teacher, assimilation will be a term I associate with a teacher who I believe has not changed what they value in their teaching as a result of the MET program. In contrast, it is possible that some teachers will change their thinking at the level of their beliefs and their values. Accomodation is a term used by Piaget, but I like the
36
word transformation to describe this level of change. Therefore, I will use transformation as the term to describe teachers who are rethinking their teaching following the MET program in terms of what reconsidering and altering what they value in their teaching and what their goals are. Kegan and Lahey (2001) apply Kegan’s model to a work setting. Their premise is that people resist change because the proposed change conflicts with another competing commitment they have, which makes them believe that change will have negative consequences. Their interview protocol could help me to uncover the reasons teachers sometimes undermine their own efforts to implement inquiry-based science teaching, even though they desire to do so. For example, the desire for a quiet classroom could compete with a desire to implement the lesson as planned. By uncovering these subconscious competing commitments, it is then possible for a teacher to examine their beliefs and see if the commitments are true. Then they can decide if they want to change their classroom practice are at the center of their classroom and of their students’ learning. This will have to change in order to implement the model as the MET program intends. Therefore, the program staff is really asking these participants to change the way they know science teaching.
Summary
In this chapter I define the inquiry modeled in the MET program as inquiry-based science teaching, and place it somewhere in the middle of the inquiry-based science teaching spectrum. Then I show that research on reform efforts points to a need for research to focus on teachers and their beliefs and values. Two developmental frameworks that incorporate beliefs and values are Integral Spiral Dynamics and Kegan’s psychological developmental model. While these models do not limit the study, they provide appropriate lenses for situating and understanding aspects of teacher change. The next chapter will detail how I enacted my study.
37
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY AND METHODS
Introduction
As I planned this research, I had a broad question in mind: How did teachers’ conceptions of inquiry change after they participated in an inquiry-based research experience? I spent the summer of 2003 as a teacher participant in the MET program. In September of the following school year, I taught my lesson again back in Suzanne’s sixth-grade science classroom. Suzanne had allowed me to teach my pre-program lesson there, as well, and was the wife of a colleague. On the days that I taught, my planning came face-to-face with the realities of a particular classroom context as well as constraints in my own life. As a result, I implemented the lesson differently than I had originally planned. The next year, I drove a van from Tallahassee to CSU’s marine laboratory, transporting a group of seven or more teachers for 75 minutes each way of the round trip. This time with the teachers gave me an opportunity to establish relationships with them and to listen to their expectations and reactions to the research experiences. As I interacted with the participants and the program, I planned my intended dissertation study, which was to be based on the secondary teacher participants of the MET program. Given my past educational research experiences (Blanchard, 1999), I believed that it would be essential to get to know potential participants in my dissertation study on a personal level, to better understand them. I knew that building a relationship with individual teachers could greatly enhance my understanding of their lived experiences as they taught the inquiry-based science lessons back in their classrooms. Van Manen (1990) describes research as a caring act, and asserts that knowing and caring about a person orients us to the uniqueness of the person in a particular situation. For these reasons, I made an effort to interact with all of the program participants, which included eating lunch with them, driving them extra trips to the beach, helping 38
them with data collection and cleanup, watching their presentations, and often simply watching what they did and encouraging them as they worked. Frequently, I would ask individuals how they were responding to different aspects of the program, as a way to better understand the program through the lens of a practicing teacher. At this point, it had been a full eight years since I taught science on a daily basis. The conversations with these teachers brought me back in touch with the views and concerns of practicing classroom teachers. I befriended many of the program participants and grew to appreciate many aspects of those with whom I had less contact in the informal, collegial atmosphere of the MET program. Becoming acquainted with teachers can give one an impression as to how they might go about teaching in their classrooms. But to truly discover what teachers do, one needs to go to teachers’ classrooms and observe. Davis and Helly’s (2004) research shows that teachers from the 2003 MET program thought they were carrying out certain actions as they taught their inquiry-based science lessons, such as allowing students to ask their own questions, but the evidence shows that their actions did not always match the teachers’ intentions or cognizance of their actions. Davis and Helly (2004) find that it was not until they specifically asked teachers what evidence supported their claims that these teachers were able to realize they had not actually done what they set out to do and thought they were doing. Therefore, a strong component of my data collection was to make direct observations of the teachers’ actions in their classrooms and to ask teachers about them. This chapter begins with the expanded research questions that developed when I analyzed data and wrote articles describing my findings. The research questions flow from the original research questions in Chapter One. Next, I detail the type of research study I carried out and the methodology I employed. I then describe an overview of the MET program, and give a brief description of the participants who participates, and their classroom settings. I also explain my data sources and display the conceptual frameworks that help me link the different aspects of my research study. Next, I show the data rubrics and data analysis techniques I employed in making sense of the data. Lastly, I discuss the quality criteria used to judge the “goodness” of my study.
39
Format of the Dissertation
The data analysis for this dissertation took place in preparation for three main conference papers (SASTE, 2005; ASTE, 2006; and AERA, 2006). When it came time to write the dissertation, the decision was made to keep the integrity of the research papers by inserting them into the dissertation as separate findings chapters (Chapters Five, Six, and Seven). A fourth paper (Chapter Four) was written last, which also is intended as a “stand alone” paper for future publication. The rationale for the inclusion of the separate papers as chapters was that this format best maintained the scholarship of the research, which would have been diminished had they been taken apart and the data represented in the form originally intended in the dissertation prospectus of 2005. Thus, the dissertation findings are a collection of free-standing papers that employ all of the data techniques and data analyses described in this chapter. Given the focus of the various papers, additional research questions developed as papers were written that expanded upon the original five research questions. These expanded research questions are listed here, by chapter, as they appear in this dissertation:
Expanded Research Questions
Chapter Four 1) What are the MET program Principal Investigators’ conceptions of inquiry-based and their goals for the teachers in the MET program? 2) How do the PIs’ conceptions compare to those of the program teachers? 3) What are university scientists’ conceptions of inquiry? Chapter Five 1) How have the teachers changed in their conceptions of inquiry-based science teaching following their participation in the MET program? Chapter Six 1) How do teachers’ conceptions and enactment of classroom inquiry change following participation in a research experience for teachers?
40
2) What seems to account for the differences in the depth and breadth of teachers’ changes? 3) What are some possible implications of these results in terms of the design of future professional development programs? Chapter Seven 1) How did teachers’ and students’ questions differ from pre to post program? 2) What does the question analysis indicate about teachers’ changes in enactment of classroom inquiry following a research experience for teachers? 3) What are the implications of this study? Chapter Eight 1) What factors supported or constrained the teachers’ ability to carry out inquiry-based instruction? 2) What implications do these findings have for other teacher research experiences or enhancement programs?
Focus of Study
There were clear limits on what I studied in this research project. A case has clear, delineated boundaries (Merriam, 1998). Therefore, this research is a case study on how teachers conceptualized and implemented inquiry-based science teaching. The groups included in the study are: 1) ten secondary science teachers from the 2004 MET program; and 2) the two program principal investigators. A case study is not a methodology, but a choice of what will be studied (Stake, 2000). According to Yin, case studies are particularly appropriate for understanding the how and why questions (Merriam, 1998). The case I currently have delineated is the MET program. The aspect of the program I evaluated related to how the teachers changed: how they understand inquiry-based science, how they enact it, why they enact it as they do and how this changed from prior to the MET program. Case studies are particularly suitable for discovering the context and population of the study and the extent to which a treatment had an effect (Merriam, 1998). I looked at a group of teachers who experienced a summer science research experience together, and who returned to their
41
public school classrooms and taught an inquiry-based lesson with their students. Did the program make any difference in how they taught science inquiry? What are the teachers’ understandings of inquiry-based science teaching? These questions are at the heart of what I want discovered. Because the MET program was the case I studied and for which I gained an understanding, this was an intrinsic case study (Stake, 1995). My goal was to understand this particular program’s goals, and how the program impacted the inquiry-based science teaching of the teachers who participated. Stake asserts that the designation of the type of case study is important because it helps researchers to decide on the appropriate methods they will employ in their studies. From the perspective of the program PIs, was the program successful? In order to understand: What are the goals of the MET program, as conceived by the PIs? There are five stated goals in the MET grant proposal (Granger & Herrnkind, 1999). However, the stated goals of the MET program in the grant proposal did not necessarily reflect the current goals and intentions of the program staff. This was partially a function modifying the PIs original intentions to satisfy National Science Foundation (NSF) grant requirements, and partially a result of the program being carried out by staff members who were not a part of the grant development process (E. Granger, personal communication, May 25, 2005). Once I found out the intentions and goals of the program of the program PIs, then I was able to compare those to the teachers’ conceptions of inquiry and whether how teachers had enacted inquiry matched the PIs goals. While intrinsic case studies focus on the issues, context, and interpretations of the individual case, there is an expectation that the results of the study can be generalized in some senses to other situations that may share similar characteristics (Stake, 2000). This study is inherently intrinsic, but I also wanted this study to add to the literature in terms of real ways that teachers’ practices were impacted through their participation in the MET program, a type of follow-up which is little documented in the literature (Fretchling et al., 1995). I also tried to provide enough description in the narrative sections (see Chapter Six, for example) for readers to draw their own conclusions and perhaps extrapolate my findings to other cases (Stake, 2000). It is my hope that thick descriptions
42
of the contexts and the teachers will inform others, particularly those who are designing research experiences with the goal of teacher change. Therefore, the implications from the findings of this research certainly will inform professional development for teachers, and indicate issues relevant to reform. However, the primary emphasis of this study was on understanding the experiences of the teachers as they tried to enact inquiry-based science teaching in the context of their classrooms. How did I do this? In the next section I discuss methodological issues relevant to this research.
Methodology
In this research, I tried to gain an understanding of is what it meant for the teachers in this study to teach inquiry-based science. But the teachers were not teaching science in a vacuum. They were teaching it in the context of their public school classrooms. This required a translation from milieu of the marine lab to that of their classroom context (Habermas, 1989). The contextual factors of conducting science inquiry in a research laboratory and carrying out inquiry-based science teaching back in their public school classrooms are very different (Keyes & Bryan, 2001). In fact, the contextual factors are both complex and poorly understood (Anderson & Helms, 2001). Anderson and Helms (2001) and van Zee (2000) describe many dilemmas that teachers experience as they try to implement reform: time, classroom reality versus an ideal; changing roles and the nature of the work; how to respond to students’ questions; a focus on preparing students for the next grade; and equity. All of the elementary teachers interviewed for Blanchard’s study (2003) listed time as an important factor affecting how they planned to enact inquiry-based science with their students. Other factors related to materials, content knowledge, adequate supervision, and confidence as affecting how they carried out inquiry-based instruction. According to Davis and Helly (2004), the contextually-driven changes to teach inquiry-based science in the classroom were changes that elementary teachers from the 2003 MET research experience were illequipped to make on their own.
43
Davis and Helly’s (2004) study reveals that there were content issues not only with the subject taught in the lesson, but also with understanding the actual steps of the inquiry modeled in the MET program, as it translated to changes in their teaching. Applying findings from Sinatra, Southerland, McConaughy, and Demastes’ (2003) research, it is possible that some MET program participants, even if quite enthusiastic in their participation and acceptance of the inquiry-based science modeled in the MET program, may not truly understand inquiry-based science. And even if those teachers do understand it, Schulman’s notion of pedagogical content knowledge (1986) suggests he or she may still be unable to translate their understandings of content into their teaching. Furthermore, even if teachers understand the MET model of inquiry-based science teaching, both structured and open inquiry place unique demands on teachers and students, not just in terms of pedagogical content knowledge, but also teaching strategies, social responsibilities, cognitive abilities, and self-regulation. Yore (2003) found that systemic demands related to obtaining supplies and professional support make it hard for teachers to implement inquiry-based science programs. Indeed, in my own re-teaching of my post program lesson following my participation in the 2003 MET program, I was surprised at how difficult I found the short class periods and dealing with cleaning up and readying materials in preparation for the next class. Additionally, when a teacher is making pedagogical changes that are unfamiliar to the student’s other experiences, students may perceive the experience as not only different, but wrong (Davis & Blanchard, 1999). Shymansky, Yore and Anderson find that teachers who were just starting to implement innovative practice struggled, while those who did not attempt the innovations appeared more polished to the students (as cited in Yore, 2003). Wilber’s (2000) integral, four quadrant model (IQAL) offers an interesting way to map inquiry onto separate quadrants as a way to better understand its different aspects. The concerns mentioned by Yore (2003) include systemic demands (exterior, collective), which would be located in the lower right quadrant of Wilber’s IQAL model. The cognitive abilities of teachers are in the upper left quadrant (individual, subjective). The beauty of using this model is that it allows us to visualize the complexities of understanding inquiry, and that gaining an understanding of interior, subjective
44
knowledge is certainly going to require different methods than obtaining knowledge of systemic demands at a school or in a district, for instance. Certainly, it appears there are contextual adjustments to translating the lesson from the marine laboratory experience to the classroom. This can be very difficult for the teacher, as well as the students. Therefore, literature supports the need for a study about inquiry-based science teaching that incorporates context as a major focus.
Naturalistic Evaluation The importance to highlight context necessitated a methodology for this study that does so. One such methodology is naturalistic evaluation. Guba (1987) writes, “Naturalistic evaluation emphasizes the crucial nature of context, arguing that context not only gives meaning to a phenomenon but is the very basis of its existence” (p. 27). This resonates with Osborne’s work (1998). As such, naturalistic evaluations must provide thick descriptions so the context can be fully appreciated as to its situatedness. If each site is described in enough detail, the reader can get a “vicarious experience” of what happened (Guba, 1987, p. 28). A strength of naturalistic evaluation is that it can be used to assess an ongoing process, such as classroom teaching through direct observations, descriptions, and data collection with videotape, for instance (Guba, 1987). Using this methodology, we can watch as teachers conduct inquiry-based science teaching in their classroom, and later ask questions of the teachers to better understand their constructions. By giving details of the particular aspects of the case, depth and realism can be provided to the reader. The differences between conventional and naturalistic belief systems are summarized in Table 3.1. Table 3.1. Summary of Conventional and Naturalistic Belief Systems (adapted from Guba, 1987, p. 33). Assumptions Ontology
Conventional Posture Realist: A single, independent reality exists.
Epistemology Methodology
Dualistic, Objectivist Interventionist: Context is stripped so inquiry can get at truth
45
Naturalist Posture Relativist: Multiple constructed realities. Truth is most sophisticated construction. Monist, Subjectivist Hermeneutic: Context is construed to give meaning and existence to that explored.
As Guba (1987) describes it, in naturalistic evaluation, the evaluation is an emergent process. Therefore it can not be completely designed in advance, for an evaluation depends upon the inputs of stakeholders. Evaluators are subjective partners with stakeholders in the creation of evaluation data. The goal “is to develop shared constructions that illuminate a particular context and provide working hypotheses for the investigation of others” (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen, 1993, p. 45). Although this type of research may use a variety of types of data collection and analysis, it is important not to combine methods that borrow from the different paradigms, as a naturalistic paradigm is at odds with the traditional paradigm. For example, collection of data without considering the context or without consulting the views of the teacher would be incompatible with naturalistic evaluation. Guba, writes,
The three levels of beliefs—ontological, epistemological, and methodological— are dependent on one another; once the ontological question What is there to be known? is answered, the range of possibilities for answers to the epistemological question What is the relationship of the knower to the knowable? is sharply constrained, and once the epistemological question is answered, the way in which the methodological question How can the knower go about knowing? can be answered is virtually dictated (p. 34).
In naturalistic inquiry, a comparable term for naturalistic evaluation, the researcher herself is the most important instrument for data collection and analysis (Erlandson et al., 1993). As such, it is important that the researcher has experiences that are compatible with stakeholders in the study. Erlandson et al. (1993) caution, “The difficulties of constructing shared realities with persons in a setting are intensified if the researcher does not have the necessary experience to construct realities that are compatible with those persons’ constructed realities” (p. 47). In this study, I, as researcher, was also an experienced high school and middle school science teacher, plus I experienced the MET program as both a participant and as a researcher. These experiences ought to, according to Erlandson et al., give me the necessary skills and
46
background to satisfactorily conduct the study. Indeed, one of the reasons I decided to study the secondary teachers in depth was that my own experiences were more in line with those teachers rather than those who teach at the elementary level. The primary purpose in gathering data is to “gain the ability to construct reality in ways that are consistent and compatible with the constructions of a setting’s inhabitants” (Erlandson et al., 1993, p. 81). Experience in similar settings helps, but it is also important to gather data from a variety of sources, and in a variety of ways. Sometimes less structured conversations are an important way to uncover hidden assumptions and the constructions of the teacher. The appearance of a classroom and the general way a teacher operates can also be helpful in understanding their values and the realities of their situations. Therefore, all of my senses, intuition, thoughts and feelings have a role in data collection. From the beginning, a naturalistic researcher uses the context to infer a design that provides direction for subsequent data collection and analysis. An audit trail of notes and documents are important, and it is better to keep too many rather than to be missing valuable information. The analysis in a naturalistic evaluation takes place in an interactive way. This interaction between data collection and analysis is a critical feature of naturalistic inquiry, one that distinguishes it from traditional research methods. “As soon as data are obtained, tentative meaning is applied to them. When new data are obtained, meaning is revised” (Erlandson et al., 1993, p. 39). This is why I analyzed data as I went, analyzing data from Nate and Charity early in the process as a way to “try out” the rubrics and see if the way I handled data analysis “worked” in the sense that it offered explanations and understanding of what had happened in the classroom. My analysis of how teachers currently understood and implemented inquiry was based on: informal conversations; field notes; the classroom context; what they did as they taught inquiry (both pre and post program); how they responded to pre and post program questionnaires; and a formal interview. I used what I learned from the first teachers I analyzed to help me make adjustments in the inquiry and questioning rubrics, and in fact revised what I did substantially. Although I originally intended to have a more formalized way of connecting what teachers said to what others had said (Guba & Lincoln’s (1989) hermeneutic dialectic) my interactions and
47
conversations that might have done this were informal, and mainly came to mind in the midst of the interview. Certainly, what I learned from Nate and Charity helped me to better understand issues with subsequent teachers; it just did not occur very frequently in terms of specifically citing what one teacher had said and then asking the other teacher for a response to a similar situation. Perhaps this was partially a function of having so much to discuss with each teacher during the interview, I did not really have time for this step. In retrospect, it might have been useful to collect that sort of information in a second interview. In one example of the fluidity of the analysis in naturalistic evaluation, I spent a month or so searching for a way to handle the interview data in terms of gaining an understanding of teachers’ underlying values in making the decisions they made in their teaching. I tried out Lemke’s (1990) and Newman’s (2005) discourse models, as well as a table I composed using van Zee’s (2000) topics for investigations as a way to code interviews. Ultimately, I found usefulness in investigating what Doug Zahn would call the “breakdowns” in classrooms; the incidents when something unanticipated occurred, and the teacher needed to decide how to handle it (D. Zahn, personal communication, October 16, 2005). Consultation of the literature connected me with the term “critical incidents” as a name for these exchanges (Crawford, 2000; Johnston & Southerland, in review; Nott & Wellington, 1995). Initially, I had not known that I would have these frequent incidents in the classrooms of most of the teachers, I didn’t know what they would be called, and therefore I did not know that I would analyze them. But, once I did, the analysis provided a window of understanding into the underlying values and goals of the teachers, which was corroborated through asking the teacher about these instances during the follow-up interview. Thus, there were changes in the study as it unfolded, not only in the methods of data analysis, as I just described, but also in other ways, influenced by the concerns and characteristics of the teachers with whom I interacted throughout the study. Erlandson et al (1993) explain,
Once the study is begun, the design of a naturalistic study continues to emerge. As the researcher gets deeper and deeper into the context, he or she will see that
48
early questions and working hypotheses, however helpful in getting started, are very simplistic. First sources of data reveal others that the researcher could not have imagined….Unanticipated patterns, and events require the researcher to think and perceive in completely new ways (p. 75).
It is ideal to have multiple ways of looking at a problem to determine if we are “getting it right” or developing interpretations that are comprehensive or accurate. Triangulation is a way to gain insights into a situation through several different sources (Stake, 1995). However, because an assumption with traditional triangulation is that there is fixed point to be understood, I prefer to use Richardson’s (2000) term crystallization. She writes,
[T]he central imaginary is the crystal, which combines symmetry and substance with an infinite variety of shapes, substances, transmutations, multidimensionalities, and angles of approach…Crystals are prisms that reflect externalities and refract within themselves, creating different colors, patterns, and arrays, casting off in different directions. What we see depends on our angle of repose (p. 934).
Reporting out all of the multidimensionalities of this study has been a challenge. Erlandson et al. (1993) suggest using a case study format in reporting findings of a naturalistic evaluation, as it empowers the stakeholders and employs thick descriptions, which invite the readers of the study to take an active role. I write each of my findings chapters either with a rich, descriptive style, or with a lot of data or summary data presented. Ideally, in reading these findings chapters, the reader will vicariously interact with the data to make judgments about my findings. What was the context of the MET program? It is to the program we next turn.
49
The Marine Ecology for Teachers Program
The PIs designed the MET program to give middle and secondary science teachers experiences with original research. The grant proposal (Granger & Herrnkind, 1999) asserted that most teachers lack an understanding of science as a process, primarily because of inadequate opportunities in traditional college science classes. The proposal argues that through personal discovery of the nature of scientific inquiry, the teachers would gain confidence and also “a desire and capacity to transmit the inquiry process to their students” (p. 8). Rather than teaching science in the cookbook fashion of experiments with a known end, the hope was that these teachers would gain instructional techniques and the sustained experiences necessary to obtain an authentic picture of inquiry, and attain some level of proficiency in conducting investigations. After a period of sustained activity with inquiry-based science, teachers were to reflect both individually and as a group to see what they learned. Because the research setting was geographically close to where the teachers taught and the biological resources were local, it was hoped that teachers would be better able to adapt some of these same field experiences to their own classrooms and students. Although the grant project originally proposed to work with secondary teachers, not enough secondary teachers responded to the invitation to fill the 25 available slots. Therefore, the program directors decided to invite elementary teachers as well (D. Granger, personal communication, March 25, 2004). The program directors had anticipated that the elementary teachers would be less able to grasp some of the conceptual aspects of the inquiry-based science, but they found that the elementary teachers seemed just as capable as the secondary science teachers, and in come cases seemed more receptive to the program (Dutrow, 2005). This change to invite elementary teachers to participate is but one example of how the program evolved over its five years. At the end of the first cohort group, teachers’ lessons did not show evidence of connections to the inquiry-based experiences (Davis & Helly, 2004). Therefore, Sandy, a highly accomplished, National Board certified high school science teacher was recruited to focus on helping teachers reflect on the program to better transfer their experiences into their lessons and hopefully their teaching. She
50
had conducted her own doctoral research on reflective practice, and as such had a great deal of expertise in eliciting this in others. In general, the program’s earlier years emphasized the doing of inquiry-based science over applications to teaching. Each year the balance gradually shifted to a more equal balance between time spent doing inquiry-based science and time spent reflecting on inquiry-based science and planning lessons that more explicitly contained the elements modeled in the MET program. The way the MET program selected to carry out reflective practice was modeled orally, and practiced with the entire group of 24 teachers. Thus, these discussions fostered critical analysis of what the teachers had experienced in the program, “critical analysis” that Borko (2004) asserts is “relatively rare” in professional development settings (p. 7). Table 3.2 indicates some of the differences in the program from year 1 to year 5.
Table 3.2. MET Program Details, Years 1-5. Number of weeks
Pre-program Questionnaire
Pre-program videotape
Post-Program Questionnaire
Template
2000 2001
6 6
No Yes
No No
No Yes
2002
6
Yes
Yes
Yes
2003
5
Yes
Yes
Yes
2004
5
Yes
Yes
Yes
No Yes Group Yes Individual Yes Individual Yes Individual + power analysis sheets
Program Year
PostProgram videotape No No No Audiotape Yes Yes
After 2002, the program principals made the decision to shift some of the work from the summer inservice time back to the teachers’ classrooms, as this is where the translation of inquiry into practice could happen. There also were difficulties in scheduling a six-week workshop in coordination with several other summer inservice programs at the university. The decision to shift some of the work to teachers back in their classrooms also led to shortening the program from six to five weeks, and teachers were asked to teach, videotape, and analyze their post-program lesson, starting in 2002
51
(see Table 3.2). The underlying assumption was that teachers would use a number of days to teach their inquiry-based lesson, and then watch their taped teaching, reflect on the lesson, and complete the post-program questionnaire. The addition of a pre-program videotape as well as a post-program videotape and questionnaire led to discussions about splitting up participant payments, to give participants pay for completing their post program teaching. This was begun with the 2003 cohort of teachers in which the five-week stipend was now $1800 and the post program pay was $300. Program staff carefully planned day-to-day activities. Table 3.3 shows how the time was scheduled during the 2004 MET program. The program delineated clearly between time spent wearing a “science hat” versus time spent with a “teacher hat,” the program staff’s way of delineating between thinking about science and teaching pedagogy. In 2004 about half of the days were equally split between teacher activities and science activities. One unique aspect of the program is the template. Teacher participants in 2001 devised the original template. They did this by analyzing, step-by-step what Dr. Henry “Cap” Baher did the first two days of the MET program as he led them through an inquiry-based science activity. For convenience, Cap’s actions were broken into chronological stages by the program principals. The 2001 teachers negotiated names for these stages: Stage 1) orientation, Stage 2) fieldwork, Stage 3) debriefing, Stage 4) experimentation, Stage 5) data analysis, and Stage 6) presentation. Therefore, scientific inquiry, as modeled in the MET program, consisted of six stages (this aligned with guided or collaborative inquiry. See Table 2.1). The idea was that teachers’ generic descriptions of the stages could be applied to designing inquiry-based lessons from more traditional ones. Therefore, the template was intended as a tool to help teachers translate the program experiences into their lessons.
52
Table 3.3. Summer 2004 MET Program Calendar, June 7-July 9. Mon 7 SCIENCE Orientation Field Debrief
14. SCIENCE Data Analysis/ Presentation Prep
Tues 8.TEACHER Debrief Stages 13 Includes “role of” question further directed to focus on ownership (power) 15 SCIENCE Presentation
Wed 9. TEACHER Journal
Thurs 10. TEACHER Journal
Fri 11. TEACHER Journal
SCIENCE Exp Design Data Collection
SCIENCE Data Collection
SCIENCE Data Collection/ Analysis
16 TEACHER Debrief Stages 4-6 Ownership (Power) Analysis
17 TEACHER Journal SCIENCE Project 2 Field Trips 1
18 TEACHER Journal SCIENCE Project 2 Field Trip 2 Debrief, Q. Development, Group Formation, Experimental Design 25 TEACHER Unit Issues
R&R
Debrief Observations
21 TEACHER Whole Group Analysis Summary Unit Assignment SCIENCE Project 2 Question Development, Experimental Design 28 TEACHER Unit Issues
22 TEACHER Unit Issues
23 SCIENCE Data Collection
24 TEACHER Unit Issues
SCIENCE
TEACHER Roundtable Talk/ Presentation
SCIENCE Data Collection
SCIENCE Data Collection, Analysis, Help Sessions
29 TEACHER Unit Issues
SCIENCE Data collection, Analysis, Help Sessions 18:11-0.02 5
SCIENCE Data Collection, Analysis, Help Sessions 19:01 –0.44 6 SCIENCE Data Analysis/ Presentation Prep
30 TEACHER Unit Issues & Dry Ice SCIENCE Data Collection, Analysis, Help Sessions 19:51 –0.75 7 SCIENCE Presentation
1 TEACHER Unit Issues SCIENCE Data Collection, Analysis, Help Sessions Sunset 20:41 –0.91 8 TEACHER Prep to Present Unit Plan R&R IN-Field
2. TEACHER Unit “complete” SCIENCE Data Collection, Analysis, Help Sessions 21:32 –0.94
53
9 TEACHER Present Unit Plan Party On-site, Cookout, Early Release
Despite the grant project intentions to do regular follow-up with participants and for some graduate level studies to come out of the grant (Granger & Herrnkind, 1999), staff who originally intended to conduct follow-up were too busy, and they only completed two studies. Davis and Helly (2004) conducted a research study with four elementary teacher participants from the 2003 cohort group, and Dutrow (2005) analyzed the process the program staff went through in establishing in negotiating a template for the teachers. In 2004, Helly developed a power analysis sheet to better understand the nature of who held ownership (power) in the classroom, at the stages of the lesson (Davis & Helly, 2004). A master’s thesis was written on the program’s process of negotiating the template (Dutrow, 2005). This dissertation study is the largest study undertaken on the MET program, focusing on 10 teacher participants, and the two program PIs.
Teacher Participants and Settings
Ten teachers allowed me into their classrooms for this study, some by having me show up at their schools, setting up a camcorder, handing them a tape recorder to carry around, and typing up notes as they taught. These teachers passed along their written lessons and the materials they handed out to students. Other teachers, located at a greater distances (California, Texas, Georgia and central Florida) allowed me entry to their teaching by sending me videotapes of their teaching and mailing audiotapes of the lessons. All of these teachers also gave me access to the journals they completed during the program and their pre program videotapes, as well. All of them granted me interviews during which time we discussed their goals as teachers, and what they valued in their classrooms. These teachers revealed themselves to me in many ways. The sharing these individuals did with me was what Parker Palmer (1998) might call “courageous.” Despite my spending many hours around the teacher participants as they participated for five weeks in the MET program, all of my understandings of this person as a classroom teacher were gleaned through these classroom glimpses and our conversations related to this rather limited view of what constituted their “teacherness.” However generous and open these teachers had been with me, I was daunted by the task of taking this limited
54
entry into these teachers’ classrooms and trying to portray them in the pages they are afforded in this dissertation. My dilemma as a researcher writing up this section was, “How do I take a person and convey some essence of who they are in a small amount of space? The results will be but a snapshot!” My hope is that the descriptions you read of these teachers will give you a mental picture of each teacher, which you can access in later portions of the dissertation, with the caveat that my portrayal is but a slice of who this person is, in the context of their classrooms. Indeed, my findings are momentary insights into these people as they are teaching, using what they believe to be inquirybased teaching. Initially, I planned to study all 13 secondary science teacher participants from the 2004 MET program, hoping they would agree to participate. A study is always ultimately limited by the amount of time, money, and hours that are available (Stake, 1995). Yet I felt it would be still be possible to study all of the secondary participants as they re-taught their inquiry lessons, and was excited at the potential for analysis with such a large number of teachers, relative to the literature of inquiry enactment studies I had read (e.g., Bencze & Hodson, 1999; Crawford, 2000). Because the inquiry lessons would comprise on average only a week of classroom teaching, I decided that it would be possible to study all of the secondary participants as they re-taught their inquiry-based lessons. In the end, I was limited to the ten teachers who both consented and continued to participate through the end of the study. These ten teachers (seven female, three male) represent a wide variety of grades taught, and eleven different schools in four states (See Table 3.4). There is disparity in the amount of time I spent with the different teachers in the study. Kaitlin, for instance, was part of another research study for which I was collecting data. Therefore, I rarely went two weeks without spending part of a day in her classroom, and on many weeks I was in her room several days a week for at least a couple of hours while interviewing students and observing her teaching on topics related to the nature of science. Another teacher, Princess, taught an inquiry lesson on plant growth, which required many weeks for the seeds to germinate and the plants to grow. Therefore, I spent many days over a couple of months visiting with her and her students. In Michael’s case, his lesson on bottle rockets lasted for eleven days, and overlapped with
55
some holidays and a couple of weekends. So, although he taught his lesson on more-orless contiguous days, I felt as though I spent a fair amount of time with him. On the other hand, Max taught only one full day for his inquiry lesson, and preferred that I not ‘hang out’ while he was teaching his biology classes, which were not taking part of his inquiry lesson. Therefore, my time with him was much more limited, and I did not get to know Max as well as many of the other teachers in the study. Therefore, with Max (as with other distances participants), I was required to take more guesses as to what I thought was important to him, and rely more on the feedback he gave me during a follow-up interview and after he read my description of him and his classroom. The differing amounts of time I spent with participants and in some cases, lack of data (e.g. a lost audiotape, class sessions that were not taped, partial data) led me to visualize the teachers in two tiers: those teachers who were “local,” thereby allowing me to visit in person and spend fair amounts of time with them; and those who were at a distance and/or for whom I had less direct contact and less data. I designated the local teachers as “main” teacher participants (with the exception of Max). The Main participants were Rogue, Michael, Kaitlin, Nate, and Princess. Those teachers who were at a distance either literally or figuratively were designated as “secondary” teacher participants. The Secondary teacher participants were Max, Charity, Jamilla, Sage, and Sherilyn. I invited each of the teachers in this study to select his or her pseudonym. All of the teachers did so, except for Charity and Sherilyn. All of these teachers’ descriptions have been revised, based on member checks with the teacher participants (Guba & Lincoln, 1989), who read earlier drafts. Table 3.4 gives an overview of all of the teachers in the study the background, teaching assignment, and general school context for each teacher participant.
56
Table 3.4. Teacher Participant Overview. Name*, Ethnicity, Gender, Age, Degrees Princess, AA Female, 48 B.S. Criminology M.S. Special Education Ed. S. in progress, Special Education Michael, AA Male, 32 B.S. biochemistry
Years of experience
Classroom descriptions
Pre/Post Lesson topic
School context
15
6th special education science
Mosquitoes
850 students, 90% AA, 51% free and reduced lunch
11th chemistry
P,V, & T relationships, 1 day
9th Physical Science
Bottle rocket flight, 11 days Egg structure & function, 1 day
4
9th Honors integrated science
Factors influencing plant growth
Kaitlin, AA Female, 43 B.S. biology, M.S. in progress, science education
8
Sage, EA Female, 33 B.S. Culinary Arts
4
10th Food Prep
Nate, EA Male, 36 B.S biology M.S. Science education
4
10th biology
Exam review session, 1 day
11th Marine science
Wave action, 8 days
Rogue, EA Female, 34 B.S. Secondary science education
11
7th Integrated science
Physical & chemical changes, 1 day
Soil absorption, 4 days Baking soda & Vinegar reaction Mold growth
Light & color wheels, 3 days
57
Rural, grades 8-12, 33% AA, 33% W, 33% H, “D” rated school, NW FL
1000 students, Former Title 1 school, mid-sized urban setting, 80% AA, “C” rated school, NW FL
Large, middle class school in a mid-sized town with somewhat rural population. 1850 students, 75% W, historically prominent public high school, primarily lower to upper middle class, mid-sized urban setting, “B” rated school, NW FL. 90% W, middle class, rural-suburban, “A” rated school, NW FL
Table 3.4. Continued Charity, EA Female, 25 B.S. Biology M.S. Biology
2
Max, EA Male, 31 B.S. English Education
7 (3 in science)
Jamilla, AA Female, 46 B.S. Biology M.A. Adult Ed Doctoral Student
20
Sherilyn, AA Female, 32 B.S. biology
5
9th Aquatic science
Betta fish behaviors
500 students, highly mobile population, middle class, approx. 48% W, 52% H/AA, suburban
10th Integrated Science
Shark organ structures & functions Soil filtration
1850 students, 75% W, lower to upper middle class, mid-sized urban setting.
8th life science
Plant tropisms, 1 day Plant tropisms, 3 days
300 students, private Christian academy, located in suburb to major city, 95% AA, middle to upper class, C GA.
Genetic crosses
2200 students, urban, public school.
6th life science
10th Biology
Betta fish behaviors
Seed germination *All names are pseudonyms (AA-African American; EA-European American)
Data Sources
I used many different means of data collection in this study. Here is a brief description of the sources of data: 1) Daily classroom observations during the teaching unit (of the teachers I was able to observe); 2) Post program interview; 3) Analysis of teachers’ pre- and post-program questionnaires; 4) Pre and post program videotaped images of a classroom science lesson; 5) Daily conversations during data collection period with local teachers in study; 6) Sketches, notes, and photos from classroom; 7) Audiotapes of classroom teaching, pre and post program lesson; 8) Classroom artifacts (handouts, lesson plans, related teaching material). Each of these will be described in this section. Daily interactions with teachers revealed some of their concerns and issues with teaching inquiry-based science (Erlandson et al., 1993). When I first went into teachers classrooms, I tried to put them at ease and asked very general things, like “How’s it going
58
today?” As I was able, I typed up observations of what happened, and any other impressions I gained from observing, talking with teachers, and looking at their classrooms. For instance, I found teachers posted signs, rules, and posters indicative of what they valued. I conducted a post program interview with each of the teachers following initial data analysis by the researcher. The purpose of this interview was to find out if the researcher’s interpretations matched what the teacher had said of their intentions and to ask any additional questions that had surfaced as important to the study (Erlandson et al., 1993). Through this process of member checking, we negotiated meaning (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). Structured interview questions for teacher were: 1. What did you do when you taught your inquiry-based lesson? 2. Did you teach the lesson as originally planned during the MET program? What did you change? 3. What were your goals? What is the evidence that your goals were met? 4. Why did you teach it as you did? 5. What was different here than when you taught a part of it at the marine lab? Explain. 6.
If nothing stood in your way, how would you teach this lesson in your classroom? How would you describe the MET program to someone who was not familiar with it? What would you say it was (i.e. a class, an inservice, a ….?
7. What is teaching? 8. What is science? 9. Do you do science in your classroom? 10. Here is an incident where I think the student asked you a question you hadn’t anticipated. Is this the case? What were you thinking when you responded the way you did? Why did you decide to handle the situation that way? [NOTE: There were a couple of teachers whose transcripts did not contain these incidents.]
59
The MET program principal investigators (PIs) also were sent a list of questions prior to their interview, to allow them time to think about their answers. Structured interview questions for the MET program PIs were: 1) What do you see as the differences between science inquiry and inquiry-based science? 2) Which of these do you think the MET program modeled? 3) What goals or visions did you have for the program? 4) If you went to the classroom of a teacher from the MET program, what would you have to see to consider the program a “success?” The structured interview was audiotaped. Tapes were transcribed and coded categorically using methods from Auerbach & Silverstein (2003). [For a detailed explanation of the coding of these data, see Chapter Four.]
Data Issues
In addition to the different lengths of time I spent with each of the participants in the study, I had different levels of quality and completeness to teachers’ data. For example, I have all of the data for interactions with Princess; all of the class time I spent in her classroom was videotaped, all of her classes were audiotaped, and I have her pre and post program questionnaires. On the other hand, Max moved in the middle of the MET program, and he lost the audiotape of his pre program lesson. Additionally, there were missing pieces of data (all of which are explained in the appropriate sections of this study) for Sherilyn, Joshulyn, Sage, and Rogue. In Rogue’s case, I had spent a number of days with her, and therefore a missing follow-up day after Thanksgiving break (she conducted another interview with her students, but neglected to plan for its recording) seemed less troubling than the missing pre program questionnaire of Joshulyn and the fact that Sherilyn had only recorded about ten minutes of a two-day lesson on genetics. Therefore, the completeness of the data is not uniform. I used what I had, and I explained what was missing in the appropriate sections of the dissertation. What I lacked in data I tried to fill in during interviews with teachers.
60
Conceptual Frameworks
In this study, I in some senses attempted to evaluate the results of the MET program in changing teachers’ conceptions and enactment of inquiry-based science in their classrooms. Pre-program
MET Program
Post-program
Characteristics of Inquiry-Based Science Teaching
Marine Ecology for Teachers Experiences/ Program vision
Characteristics of Inquiry-Based Science Teaching
-Stated –→ (Questionnaire) -Enacted (Rated from videotape and questions ranked on Bloom’s sheet)
-Inquiry-based Learning -Developing related lesson plan -Present Findings -Write reflective template
-Stated (Questionnaire) -Enacted (Rated from videotape on STIR Inquiry Sheet and questions ranked on Bloom’s sheet
Interpretation -Content Issues? -Materials? -Administrative Support? -Student characteristics? -Confidence, experience? ↓ -Competing Commitments? -Value Structures?
-Understood (interview, STIR negotiation)
-Developmental Issues? - Others?
Figure 3.1. Initial conceptual framework of the MET program case study.
As such, it was important to look at the participants starting with pre-program conceptions in order to see what their conceptions and enactment of inquiry were prior to participating in the MET program. Figure 3.1 is a conceptual framework to convey the boundaries of this case. Miles and Huberman (1994) write, “A conceptual framework explains, either graphically or in narrative form, the main things to be studied—the key factors, constructs or variables—and the presumed relationships among them” (p. 18). 61
My case study begins with the pre-program conceptions and enactment of inquiry held by the participants. Next, the teacher participants experienced the MET program, which hypothetically reflected the goals and visions of the program principal investigators. Next, the study followed the MET program teacher participants back to their classrooms to see how they enacted inquiry-based science teaching with their students as well as how they responded to a post program questionnaire on inquiry. Personal interviews further illuminated the understandings of the teachers, regardless of the teacher’s enactment of inquiry. Next was the interpretation phase, when I categorized a teacher’s conceptions and enactment of inquiry (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003; Bodzin & Beerer, 2003; Crawford, 2000; Gallagher & Parker, 1995; Huitt, 2004). When I started, I did not know if my analysis would pull out factors that linked to contextual issues (such as materials, time, student characteristics), or internal characteristics (content knowledge, confidence), or in terms of political aspects (administrative support), or other issues or factors that were not initially listed here. I anticipated that there were going to be both external and internal factors that account for some of the aspects related to the enactment and conceptual understandings of inquiry-based science teaching. Therefore, before beginning the study, I planned to explore the link between these aspects and underlying theoretical levels (my lenses) such as value structures (Beck & Cowan, 1996; Wilber, 2000), developmental issues (Kegan, 1994), and competing commitments (Kegan & Lahey, 2001). I anticipated that there might be additional aspects I had not anticipated that emerged as a result of the study.
Data Rubrics and Related Data Analysis Techniques
Pre and Post Program Questionnaires on Inquiry There were many attempts to code the data from teachers’ pre and post program questionnaires. What began as “I’ll do this first because it won’t take very long” turned into months of looking for ways to categorize and analyze teachers’ responses in ways that captured all of them and connected to the literature. [This process is described in great detail in Chapter Five.] In the end, I developed a rubric based upon Gallagher and
62
Parker’s (1995) Secondary Science Teacher Analysis matrix (SSTAM). This was a result of teachers’ responses being so linked to their practices as opposed to the more esoteric or theoretical responses I had expected to the questions.
Table 3.5. Teacher/Learner Inquiry Continuum, with Data Samples Coded. (LC=Learner Centered; TC=Teacher Centered) LC
Somewhat LC
Somewhat TC
Students take lead on some aspects, such as predictions and trying to answer questions. Student prior knowledge and curiosity a focus. Content involves some student interaction, partially focused on processes, some relevance to students. Students encouraged to ask questions, allow students to make mistakes, guide students in their thinking.
Teacher as facilitator, guided inquiry.
What scientists’ do, removed from students, fixed “scientific method.”
Content delivered by teacher, but some student participation, responding to questions. Address student questions in discussion, use questions, asks student questions on factual material, monitor students. Grades for “on task” behavior and for answering teachers’ questions, focus is on matching teachers’ knowledge. Dialogue so teacher can gauge problems, adjust thinking to teacher ideas.
No examples or interconnections, focused on factual content, delivery, no hand-on content, focus on state standards/tests. Direct instruction, identify misconceptions, monitor behavior, focus students on content.
Students thought it was social time, lab took a lot of class time.
Not enough teacher control without handouts.
Inquiry Metaphors and Definitions
Focus on student learning, hands-on doing, exploration, observations, studentgenerated questions.
Content
Connections to real world, ideas are related, connections to students’ lives, interactive.
Teacher’s Actions
Teachers act in support of student learning, actions.
Assessment
Multiple forms of assessment, some formative; focus on investigation findings and presentations.
Students generate presentations with teacher guidance, mix of factual and investigative knowledge accounting for grade.
Students’ Actions
Students actively participate in learning, experimentation, creating questions, etc.
Other Factor(s) mentioned by Teacher
Time didn’t allow for more in-depth student investigations, student interest promotes retention.
Students assume more responsibility, make predictions, gather data, learn content, use science skills. Students assumed more responsibility for their learning.
63
TC
Tests and quizzes over factual material.
Answer teacher questions, review for a grade.
The rubric I developed is called the Teacher/Learner Inquiry Rubric (TLIC). Table 3.5 shows the TLIC and it highlights the practical nature of the teachers’ focus in terms of their thinking about what they were doing, what the students were doing, assessment, content covered, time, etc.
Videotapes and Coding Teacher-Student Questions I watched the first videotape or read the transcript of the class period without having first seen the teacher’s definitions of inquiry (from the pre-program questionnaire). I then used transcripts of the lesson to code both teacher and student questions using a revised Bloom’s taxonomy (Huitt, 2004), displayed in Table 3.6. The significance of using this taxonomy is that research suggests that students remember more when they have learned to handle a topic at higher levels of the taxonomy, because more elaboration is required of them (Huitt, 2004). A lesson coded at higher levels of the modified Bloom’s taxonomy, therefore, would be an external measure of students demonstrating more learning. Carlsen finds that questions related to low-level questioning and dominating the speaking time tended to discourage students from asking questions. Alternately, he reports that student participation increases when teachers relinquish control and do not evaluate student responses (as cited in Roth, 1996). Teachers’ relinquishing control is consistent with NSES goals of inquiry-based science teaching (NRC, 2000). Van Zee’s research (2000) shows that during low-level taxonomic discourse, teachers often ask questions that try to find out what a student knows rather than to develop any conceptual understanding. Therefore, assessing the taxonomic level and the number of both student and teacher questions may indicate the quality of the science lesson. [For a much more in-depth literature review of this issue, see Chapter Seven.] Differences in pre and post program coding indicated changes between the enactment of inquiry. As an example of the coding in the table, when I made a tally mark of a question by the teacher at the knowledge level, I recorded a few examples of each teacher. I followed the same procedure for all questions asked by students to the teacher, using a separate sheet. [The teacher was carrying around a tape recorder, so all conversations that were captured were those with the teacher nearby.]
64
Table 3.6. Revised Blooms’ Taxonomy Data Sheet, Teacher’s Version (Based on Huitt, 2004). Level Knowledge
Definition Student recalls or recognizes information, ideas, and principles in the approximate form in which they were learned.
Comprehension Student translates, comprehends, or interprets information based on prior learning. Application
Student selects transfers, and uses data and principles to complete a problem or task with a minimum of direction.
Analysis
Student distinguishes, classifies, and relates the assumptions, hypotheses, evidence, or structure of a statement of question. Student originates, integrates, and combines ideas into a product, plan, or proposal that is new to him or her.
Synthesis
Sample Verbs Tallies/Examples Write List Label Name State Define Explain Summarize Paraphrase Describe Illustrate Use Compute Solve Demonstrate Apply Construct Analyze Categorize Compare Contrast Separate Create Design Hypothesize Invent Develop
Judge Student appraises, assesses, or critiques on a Recommend basis of specific standards Critique Justify and criteria * Synthesis and Evaluation are considered to be at the same level. Evaluation
When I analyzed these data, I did so for each individual [see Chapter Six for a detailed analysis of Rogue and Kaitlin] and also analyzed data across teachers using stages of inquiry [see Chapter Seven for a detailed analysis and results.] I coded each day’s data according to the stage of inquiry during which it occurred. For example, on the first day of the lesson, the teacher usually was doing the Orientation, Fieldwork, and Debriefing stages with the students, as modeled in the MET program. In general, this included some background information, an experience with a phenomenon (such as watching waves in a wave tank exposed to differing conditions), and the students coming up with their own questions. This gave me a sense of the changing roles of the teachers, 65
based on the nature of content and noncontent questions (which were categorized and coded separately). [See Chapter Seven for a very detailed account of the coding of all of the questions.] Another inquiry rubric I plan to use is the Science Teacher Inquiry Rubric (STIR) developed by Bodzin and Cates (as cited in Bodzin & Beerer, 2003) and field-tested by Bodzin and Beerer (2003). The STIR (Table 3.7) was designed to classify inquiry-based activities as to the five essential features of classroom inquiry, based on learner selfdirection and the materials indicated in the NSES (NRC, 2000). This instrument was found to be reliable among observers of the teachers, but not reliable between the observers and the elementary teachers’ self-rating. When I began, I was very interested in how my coding of secondary teachers’ results would compare to those of the elementary teachers in the literature. (I discuss these findings in Chapter Seven). Although this instrument was initially intended as a way to analyze enacted inquiry in the classroom, the way I enacted it led it to be a reflective tool. The researcher and the teacher filled out the STIR instrument independently, and then we compared our results during the follow-up interview. As a result, negotiating a shared coding between the researcher and the teacher proved to be a way to get at some of the differences between what the teacher thought they had done and what had actually occurred. It also helped me, the researcher, to better understand how the teacher had been thinking about inquiry, and ways in which they had tried to enact it like the MET program. [See Chapter Seven for a detailed description and analysis of these results.] Uncovering a teacher’s beliefs or her understanding of her classroom context can lead her to a conscious choice to change her behaviors (Kegan, 1994). In my early reading of the classroom transcripts, I noticed that teachers’ responses to students had a different tone or did not fit with the flow of the class when it had not been expected by the teacher. An unexpected question or situation the teacher caused the teacher to have to “think on her feet” so to speak. After consulting with the literature (Crawford, 2000; Johnston & Southerland, in review; Nott & Wellington, 1995) I decided to call these ‘critical incidents.’
66
Table 3.7. STIR Rubric (adapted from Bodzin & Cates, as cited in Bodzin & Beerer, 2003).
Learner Centered ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Teacher centered Learners are engaged by scientifically oriented questions. No evidence observed Teacher provides Teacher offers Teacher suggests Learner is prompted Teacher provides an learners with specific learners lists of topic areas or opportunity to engage to formulate own stated (or implied) questions or provides samples to questions or for learners with a questions or hypotheses from help learners scientifically oriented hypothesis to be hypotheses to be which to select. formulate own tested. question. investigated. questions or hypothesis. Learners give priority to evidence, which allows them to develop and evaluate explanations that address scientifically oriented questions. No evidence observed Teacher provides the Teacher provides Teacher encourages Learners develop Teacher engages procedures and guidelines for learners to plan and procedures and learners in planning protocols for the learners to plan and conduct a full protocols to investigations to students to conduct conduct part of an investigation, independently plan gather evidence in the investigation. providing support and investigation. Some response to questions. and conduct a full choices are made by scaffolding with investigation. the learners. making decisions. Teacher provides data Teacher provides data No evidence observed Teacher directs Learners determine Teacher helps and asks learners to and gives specific learners to collect what constitutes learners give priority analyze. direction on how data evidence and develop certain data or only to evidence which is to be analyzed. provides portion f procedures for allows them to draw needed data. Often gathering and conclusions and/or provides protocols for develop and evaluate analyzing relevant data (as appropriate). data collection. explanations that address scientifically oriented questions.
67
Table 3.7. Continued. Learner Centered ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Teacher centered Learners formulate explanations and conclusions from evidence to address scientifically oriented questions. Learners evaluate their Learners are prompted Teacher prompts Teacher directs Teacher directs conclusions and/or to analyze evidence learners to think about learners’ attention learners’ attention explanations from (often in the form of how analyzed evidence (often through (often through evidence to address data) and formulate leads to questions) to specific questions) to specific scientifically oriented their own conclusions/explanation pieces of analyzed pieces of analyzed questions. conclusions/explanation s, but does not cite evidence (often in the evidence (often in the s. specific evidence. form of data) to draw form of data) to lead conclusions and/or learners to formulate evidence. predetermined correct conclusions/explanation s (verification). Learners evaluate the explanations in light of alternative explanations, particularly those reflecting scientific understanding. Learners evaluate their Learner is prompted to Teacher provides Teacher explicitly states Teacher does not conclusions and/or examine other resources resources to relevant specific connections provide resources to explanations in light of and make connections scientific knowledge and/or explanations, but relevant scientific alternative conclusions/ and/or explanations that may help identify does not provide knowledge to help explanations, independently. alternative conclusions resources. learners formulate particularly those and/or explanations. alternative conclusions reflecting scientific Teacher may or may not and/or explanations. understanding. direct learners to Instead, the teacher examine these identifies related resources, however. scientific knowledge that could lead to such alternatives, or suggests possible connections to such alternatives. Learners communicate and justify their proposed explanations Learners communicate Learners specify Teacher talks about how Teacher provides Teacher specifies and justify their content and layout to be to improve possible content to content and/or layout to proposed conclusions used to communicate communication, but include and/or layout be used. and/or explanations. and justify their does not suggest content that might be used. conclusions and or layout. explanations.
68
No evidence observed
No evidence observed
No evidence observed
Teaching transcripts from the pre and post program lessons were analyzed by 1) finding a section in which the teacher seemed surprised by a question, 2) reading the section and trying to figure out the underlying reasons the teacher had responded in the way she did in terms of her teaching values/goals, and 3) conducting a member check with the teacher during the follow-up interview by looking at the incident and verifying that the teacher had been surprised by the question and asking the teacher why she had responded as she did, then negotiating out with the teacher an appropriate interpretation for what had happened (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). There were varying numbers of critical incidents in the teachers’ classrooms. The numbers were higher when teachers were trying something very different from what they had ever done before.
Quality Criteria
Trustworthiness Before I discuss the findings I have of this dissertation, I must first ask a more basic question. Was this study good? Did the research have a level of quality that enables us to trust the findings? The most important aspect of trustworthiness is member checking. But other aspects, such as prolonged engagement, crystallization, and thick description, are also ways to provide evidence of trustworthiness (Erlandson et al., 1993; Richardson, 2000). Data for this dissertation were collected from the participants at two levels of interaction. One level was with five local teacher participants whose classrooms I directly observed. I grew to know these teachers quite well. We talked about pets and children, husbands and girlfriends. We talked about what we did in our personal time. We shared gossip from our jobs and shared concerns we had in our work. We developed a level of trust in each other (Dana & Davis, 1993). The second group of participants was either at a distance (four teachers) or local, but with whom I didn’t spend much time (one teacher). All of them were interesting people but due to distance and our busy schedules, they were not accessible to me. Although I also spent time with these teachers during the 2004 summer program, and technically I had much of the same data on all of the teachers, about halfway through the
69
year I realized I was not going to have the same understandings of these teachers as those with whom I had spent lots of time. As a result of these differences, the data to support trustworthy criteria (Erlandson et al., 1993) are different and must be described separately. I highlight these differences in Table 3.8. Therefore, the greatest challenge to me in establishing trustworthiness for this study was with the teachers who were at a distance, and in one case, a local teacher who I did not spend much time with and therefore did not get to know well. I think I can say that with the “main” teachers in the study, I was able to establish a high level of trustworthiness. I had much less frequent contact with those who were further away. In darker moments I considered not including these teachers in the study, but I valued the range of data provided by keeping them a part of the study, and therefore I did. I believe I have established a level of trustworthiness with the secondary participants by virtue of the fact that I have not interpreted their data in ways that go beyond my understandings of them or beyond the data I have to support my claims. Note that the secondary participants’ data were not analyzed for the more in-depth Chapter Six. Instead, secondary participants’ teacher data were analyzed for the conceptions chapter and the enactment chapter, and I think the ways in which they were represented are appropriate to the understandings I had of those teachers and their teaching. Table 3.8. Summary of Examples for Establishing Trustworthiness with Main Teachers and Secondary Teachers in Dissertation Study (Adapted from Erlandson et al., 1993). Technique Prolonged engagement
Results of prolonged engagement: Build trust, develop rapport, build relationships, obtain wide scope of data
Examples from Main Teachers in Dissertation Knew participants for 5 weeks of summer program. Spent an average of a week in each teacher’s classroom, with multiple email contacts and phone calls over a period of 23 months. Scope of Data- Field notes, emails, pre/post program questionnaires, teacher artifacts, videotape and transcripts of pre and post program lessons (1-day avg. on pre lesson, 5-day avg. on post lesson), post program and data analysis interview.
70
Examples from Secondary Teachers in Dissertation Knew participants for 5 weeks of summer program. Obtained data and watched it on videotape. Multiple email contacts and phone calls over a period of 23 months. Scope of Data- emails, pre/post program questionnaires, teacher artifacts, videotape and transcripts of pre and post program lessons (1-day avg. on pre lesson, 5-day avg. on post lesson), post program and data analysis interview via telephone.
Table 3.8. Continued. Persistent observation
Results of Persistent observation: Obtain accurate, in-depth data, sort relevancies from irrelevancies Crystallization
Results of Crystallization: Data are reinforced
Peer debriefing
Results of peer debriefing: Test assertions or current hypotheses
Time together included conversations throughout the day. Teachers were asked about what they did both in person and in a follow-up interview.
Conversations were limited and mostly were in the form of the follow-up interview. It highlighted the difficulty of “observing” teachers from a distance.
Not only were different sources of data used (observational, videotape, audiotape, questionnaires, interview, artifacts, emails, phone calls) but also different data were analyzed using different instruments and types of analysis: the STIR instrument, Blooms’ question analysis, TLIC instrument, and critical incidents analysis. Peer debriefing with Dr. Davis and Dr. Southerland primarily in preparation of 4 manuscripts, but also informal conversations related to the dissertation with fellow graduate students Martin, Ayhan, and Sarah, and also Dr. Granger, Jeff Dutrow, Dr. Lavalli, Dr. Helly, primarily with regard to programmatic impressions. Also, presented four papers at conferences, three colloquium presentations, and three presentations at job interviews, all of which involved explaining the research and responding to questions about it.
Not only were different sources of data used (observational, videotape, audiotape, questionnaires, interview, artifacts, emails, phone calls) but also different data were analyzed using different instruments and types of analysis: the STIR instrument, Blooms’ question analysis, TLIC instrument, and critical incidents analysis. Conversations with peers served more to understand the main teacher participants, who served as “models” of the ones at a distance. Yes, there was peer debriefing specifically about Charity, Max, and Sage. But Jamilla and Sherilyn, with whom I had minimal personal contact and some data issues, had little peer debriefing on their behalf. Data from the secondary teacher participants from pre and post program questionnaires was used for two of the papers at conferences, all of the job interviews, and two of the colloquium presentations.
71
Table 3.8. Continued. Member checking
Informal checking of understanding with daily contact with teachers. Formal checking during the follow-up interviews and with the STIR instrument negotiations. Formal checking when drafts of papers were sent to Nate and Charity (NARST, 2005), Kaitlin & Rogue (ASTE 2006). Draft of Chapter four on Cap and Kathleen (May, 2006). Draft of dissertation is being presented to all teacher/PI participants for review and comments.
Formal checking during the follow-up interviews and with the STIR instrument negotiations. Draft of dissertation is presented to all teacher/PI participants for review and comments (May 2006).
All reflective notes were recorded in journals or on a laptop while spending time in classrooms. Additionally, reflections were noted and written up for each of the papers written about this research starting in Jan. 2005 and continuing to May 2006. A total of five papers were written*, all of which represented and discussed concerns about methodological issues and decisions in how to handle the data.
Main reflections were made when analyzing transcripts of classes for potential critical incidents and issues with the STIR instrument. These were jotted down informally in preparation for interviews with these teachers. Typed reflections were made for the one local teacher in this group.
Results of member checking: Test categories, interpretations, or conclusions
Reflexive journal
Results of reflexive journal: Document researcher decisions
72
Table 3.8. Continued. Thick description
Results of Thick Description: Provide data bases for transferability of judgments, provide vicarious experience for the reader Audit trail
Results of Audit Trail: Data can be tracked to its source
This was a challenge, due to the high number of participants. Chapter 6, which closely details four of the teacher participants, and Chapter 4, which described the PIs in close detail, do the best job of providing these experiences for readers. Quotes and descriptions are used liberally where possible to better describe the participants and the contexts. All quotes are tracked to the source. Chapters clearly delineate out the sources of the quotes, and the day of the inquiry lesson, whether it was pre or post program, etc.
There are few thick descriptions of the participants who were at a distance. They are described in the teacher section of Chapter Three, but due to a lack of time spent with these participants in the classroom and the limitations of the videotapes, there was less to describe.
All quotes are tracked to the source. Chapters clearly delineate out the sources of the quotes, and the day of the inquiry lesson, whether it was pre or post program, etc.
* Papers written about findings during dissertation research process: Blanchard, Daigle, & Malcom, 2005; Blanchard & Muire, 2005; Blanchard & Southerland, 2006; Blanchard & Davis, 2006; Blanchard, Muire, Davis, & Granger, 2006. The most important way to have trustworthiness is through member checking (Erlandson et al., 1993; Guba & Lincoln, 1989). This encompasses checking back with the stakeholders throughout the process to make sure that what I understood is what they meant. Informally, I checked my understandings with teachers usually during their teacher planning time on the days they taught their inquiry-based lesson. I was unable to do this with the teachers at a distance. One of the local teachers taught his lesson on just one day, therefore I spent little basically one lunch period engaged in these discussions with him. There were other checks and communication with the participants, most of which dealt with things like asking them for a pseudonym (I wanted them to choose their own) and checking for if I had correctly recorded their background information (age, years teaching, etc.). The second, more formal process of member checking was during the follow-up interview, which were conducted with all teachers, although there was a delay in doing so with two of the long distance teachers, some of whose data was missing and with whom I was unsure how to proceed, given these problems. Another formal member check was by sending drafts of chapters and conference papers to participants. Charity 73
and Nate were the focus of our NARST 2005 paper, and although I sent them both the paper and asked for feedback, only Nate provided feedback for improvements. Meg: It's great to see all our work starting to come to life (when I say ours, I really mean yours). How was it received at the conference? Have fun? I wish I could have gone, but I'm glad I didn't. Life's been very eventful here at Leon…The good news is that I got my professional contract! Now I don't have to kiss quite so much behind :) Here are some suggestions I've got after having read it: Methods could be illuminated a little better. I like the idea of adding some more quotes, specifically student-teacher interaction. I think it would also be informative for readers if we had some averages for all the days (1-7) in each taxonomic category in Table 2 and 3. Trying to compare 1 day of pre program questions to 7 days of post program is pretty difficult (at least for someone of my limited ability). You probably already thought of all this, but there’s my 2 cents. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help you out. Have a great weekend, Nate I share Nate’s email as a way of showing how comfortable and informal our relationship had become, and how Nate felt comfortable and competent to give me feedback on the paper. I received many emails of a similar nature from Princess, Kaitlin, Michael, and Rogue. In addition to this first paper, Rogue and Kaitlin were featured in the ASTE paper and were sent a copy immediately after the conference, as it was only completed hours before the paper was presented. Kaitlin corrected some of the background information, but said in general that she agreed with what had been written. In a personal communication when I was at her school for another research project, Rogue said that she found it “fair and accurate” and that, although she didn’t like reading everything about herself, she found it “truthful.” She sent me formal feedback in early May, “cleaning up” some of her quotes Rogue, Kaitlin, and Nate all commented that their quotes seemed stilted, a problem of converting oral communication into written text. I invited all in the
74
study to modify their quotes to “read better,” saying, “You can change your quotes. I cannot.” Another formal member check was when Cap and Kathleen read the draft of Chapter Four, which described their conceptions and goals for the MET program. Both responded immediately with not only editorial assistance, but with some issues related to the content of the chapter. Additionally, a paper proposal based upon Chapter Four involved more member checking on the information in that chapter between Kathleen and me. Teachers are busy nearly all year, but particularly in May. When I began the process of inviting teachers to read the draft of the dissertation, Kaitlin emailed me “No, my hands, feet, arms are full (LOL).” Rogue, who I saw in person said, “No, just send me the pieces on me…” The dilemma was, well, they say they are too busy, but I also want to check my understandings against theirs. In the end, I sent out an email to all that read: Friends: I am turning in a draft of my very long dissertation on Friday, May 19 and desire any and all feedback on it from you. Part of the methodology of the study is to negotiate changes with the participants, and I want to "get it right." Would you like me to 1) mail a copy of all of the chapters on CD, 2) email attached files of all of the chapters, 3) email you selected chapters that involve some of your data, or 4) email you just the portions that deal specifically with you and your data or 5) Send a paper copy? Please let me know and it will be done! If you'd like something mailed, please send me the appropriate address. I currently am slated to defend on June 14, 10:30 a.m. tentatively in room 216 Champions Hall, although if many folks come we will have to move it to 423. All of you certainly are invited, and I will update you if in fact that date changes. Thanks so very much!
75
Authenticity Authenticity refers to how the research 1) valued the stakeholders, 2) caused learning, 3) caused them to understand other stakeholders’ constructions, 4) caused action, or 5) empowered the stakeholders. These are referred to respectively as fairness, and as ontological, educative, catalytic, and tactical authenticity.
Fairness Fairness refers to valuing the constructions of all of the stakeholders, as well as expressing accurately the views of the teachers and the PIs. It also includes not overstepping what is reasonable, such as in terms of the time commitment. The stakeholders re-taught the inquiry unit as part of a post program requirement for their stipend. This lessened the feeling I had that they were doing it “just for me,” because they each were paid the final $300 of the stipend after they re-taught the lesson and submitted their materials. The greatest challenge in this dissertation was to obtain feedback from the teachers on my analysis of their data. The way in which my interpretations of their conceptions and their teaching were most clearly “corrected” was through the process of the interview, when I “ran my constructions by them” and they had the opportunity to correct me, clarify what I had said, and to give me their views. I think I did a nice job of giving these teachers assurances that I wanted to “get it right” and they took me up on my invitation to disagree with my constructions at one or more points in interviews with every teacher. I took this as a good sign that I had portrayed my intentions and my “fairness” well. I tried to be respectful of the teachers’ time and gave them small gifts (usually gift certificates) after I interviewed them and when they sent me videotapes. I also reciprocated in giving them my time by making sure the program coordinator had a copy of their teaching DVD (that I made from a DV tape), giving them each another copy of their DVD, writing letters of recommendation or helping edit sections in support of three teachers who were either in pursuit of National Board Certification or a teaching award, and writing a letter of reference for a job. Four of the teachers from my study agreed to be a part of my next research study, a follow-up
76
on student learning with inquiry-based teaching, in which I was able to pay them $300 for their participation.
Ontological Authenticity This type of authenticity refers to the extent learning took place with the individual stakeholders. Guba and Lincoln (1989) call this literally an “improvement in the individual’s conscious experience of the world” (p. 248). All of the teachers showed that they learned from taking part in the MET program, and this dissertation study was an analysis of their changes. So, in a general sense, I can show (for data, e.g., see Chapters Five, Six, and Seven) the ways in which the teachers in this study changed. I also have correspondence from Kathleen and Cap stating they had learned from the process of reading Chapter Four, particularly about each other’s conceptions of inquiry. I think though, that the process of negotiating shared constructions during the interview process with teachers, using both the STIR instrument and the critical incident analysis, were moments of great awareness on the part of the teachers and me. Perhaps this is the part of the teachers’ learning that I was most excited about, as it held the potential for them to consider making changes in what they valued in their teaching. In many cases it was the point at which I became most aware of the teacher’s underlying goals and values, or at least confirmed what I have inferred from the data. I think the person who learned the most from this study was me. I have been closely engaged in the process for three years. I do not think there has been a day in which I have not learned something from this dissertation. I have learned at the level of understanding how to better conduct a research study. I have learned much from the implications of my study, particularly with regard to the messages it holds for RETs and theoretical issues in science education. I have been reminded once again how hard it is to represent the complex individuals we study, and how lucky I have been to be able to do so. One of the assumptions I had when I began this research has altered. I don’t know exactly when it happened, but I began this project thinking that an important goal was to have teachers implement more inquiry in their classrooms. I did not question that
77
assumption, which was also an underlying goal of the MET program (Granger & Herrnkind, 1999). But at some point in the process of conducting some of the final interviews with Sherilyn and Jamilla, and thinking about how they had not selected to change very much in their teaching, I realized that I could understand why. Finally, it made sense to me how a teacher could understand inquiry, yet reject its use in his or her classroom. This was a big shift in my thinking. I think it grew from the respect I had gained for these individuals and a much greater understanding of the role of context. Many of these teachers had very good reasons for not wanting to do inquiry, and I could no longer ignore their arguments. Perhaps more accurately, I could hear them for the first time. In the context of their school, and their classrooms, I finally understood it. Prior to the start of this research I did not. This represents a huge shift in my thinking, in my ontological authenticity.
Educative Authenticity This type of authenticity refers to the extent stakeholders were able to understand the others’ constructions. This type of authenticity was not a focus of my research. I wanted to understand the individuals in the study and was not trying to gain a unified, negotiated understanding of inquiry on the part of the group as a whole. The way that I melded teachers’ conceptions and their enactment data was by using the actual numbers or combining the data through tables or through writing. Therefore, the way I applied educative authenticity in my study was in establishing it between the individual stakeholder and myself. The negotiating I did with each of the teachers individually with the STIR instrument is an example, by negotiating shared ratings of the STIR through discussion. I also did so in the interview process with the teachers, reviewing critical incidents and my findings, as of that point. The talking out that we did clarified our constructions to one another. In these ways, I feel I was did well in gaining an understanding of the stakeholders’ constructions, as they did mine, and I have interview (transcript) data to support a strong level of authenticity between myself and the stakeholders in the study.
78
Catalytic and Tactical Authenticity Catalytic authenticity asks how the process of research caused the stakeholders to act. Tactical authenticity asks how the research empowered the participants to act. I have had trouble teasing apart these two for the teachers in my study. The clearest example of my own professional growth is through the writing of this dissertation, the writing of related conference papers, and in the presentations I conducted on the findings of this dissertation at job interviews and at conferences. I would perhaps say this was more catalytic than tactical on my part, as I never had doubted my ability to write a dissertation, or give a talk, but in fact the study propelled me to do so. In terms of the individuals of the study, Nate, Kaitlin, and Michael, were all stimulated to adapt additional lessons to model the inquiry version in their classrooms. All of the teachers in the study re-taught some version of their inquiry lesson in the year after the main data collection study, except Princess, who had become an administrator. I would say I consider these steps on the part of the teachers in the category of tactical authenticity, as all of the teachers were capable and teaching the inquiry was not a step I expect they needed to be empowered to do. Two of the teachers from my study sought National Board teacher certification following the program, and one was contemplating doing so. In seeking National Board certification, one must teach an inquiry-based science lesson, videotape it and analyze the lesson. It certainly is possible that the involvement in the program and in my research spurred teachers to attempt this certification, a process that is known to be very involved and one that is difficult to achieve. Therefore, I suspect I would consider those who pursued this (Nate and Rogue; Michael is still considering it) as examples of the tactical authenticity of this research. Princess is in the process of trying to decide if she will pursue her doctorate, which she told me was partially a result of having interacted with me and befriended me during the dissertation study. If in fact she decides to do so, I would likely consider that to be an example of tactical authenticity, given that currently she is not sure she is capable of achieving that goal. Her pursuit of a doctorate would then show a new level of empowerment. Kaitlin has now started working during the summer for the university, working with teachers, partially inspired by her positive experiences with research and
79
her association with me, a representative of the university. (She also had research experiences with one of the professors at the university on another research project so it is hard to separate these out.) Kaitlin acting in this new position may be another example of the tactical authenticity of my study, as it is a new level of professionalism for her that followed her participation in my research and the MET program. Did the research empower me to do something I had not previously been able to do? Perhaps the research has finally given me the confidence to realize that I have solid findings and related implications from my study, that I trust these findings and the strength of the data I have to support them. So perhaps the way in which I have gained tactical authenticity is as a scholar in science education. Believing now that I have something to say to the community, whereas I am not sure I have been empowered in that way before now. And that is good, because I have a new career in which I will be putting my ideas “out there” when I meet professors at conferences and they ask, “What did you learn?” So that is likely the tactical authenticity I have gleaned from this dissertation study. Was my study a high quality study? Based upon the quality criteria I have just described, my response is yes. I stand by my findings, and believe this study has made a difference in the individual stakeholders by causing them to learn, to act, to feel they could trust me and share their ideas freely, and that they are now empowered in some ways to take actions they may not have taken before their involvement in the study.
Summary
This chapter began by giving a list of expanded research questions, based on how my dissertation developed. Next, I explained the use of a case study and the methodology, naturalistic evaluation. I described the context of the MET program and gave an overview of the participants in the program. Next, I detailed the conceptual frameworks guiding the study and the data rubrics and an overview of the analysis I used. Because of the format of this dissertation, I described more detailed versions of the methods in each of the relevant findings chapters. Finally, I explained how the quality of the dissertation was assured.
80
CHAPTER FOUR FINDINGS
UNIVERSITY AS REFORM AGENT: HOW INQUIRY CONCEPTIONS UNDERLYING A NON-TRADITIONAL RET INTERSECT WITH THOSE OF SCIENCE TEACHERS AND OTHER SCIENTISTS
Abstract
In recent years, some studies have explored how scientists conceptualize inquiry in their research (Harwood et al., 2002; Schwartz & Lederman, 2004, 2005). The National Science Foundation (NSF) has funded Research Experiences for Teachers (RETs) in recent years as a way to bridge the gap between science teachers and scientists (Southerland et al., 2003). The Marine Ecology for Teachers (MET) program at Southern Central Univeristy (SCU) was one such program. MET was non-traditional RET, in that it focused teachers’ learning back to their classroom through a reflective model and lesson development. As a model of research for the twenty-four teachers who participated in the 2004 cohort of the program, the conceptions held by the program PIs were thought to be salient to understanding the way the program intended to shape these teachers’ experiences of inquiry. This research studies the intentions of the program PIs by asking: What are your conceptions of inquiry and your goals for teachers in this program. Additionally, it posits the usefulness of their responses to the teachers, and considers the role of university scientists in reform by asking: What are the teachers’ conceptions of inquiry and how do these align with those of scientists presented in the literature? Findings indicate that the PIs’ conceptions of inquiry partially bridged the gap between teachers and scientists, but lacked concrete connections to classroom practice. There were conflicting goals between program PIs who desired the teachers to acquire skills needed for the process of inquiry and those of the teachers, who wanted more
81
guidance on how to enact inquiry in their particular classrooms. This research suggests that university scientists who value classroom teaching are appropriate agents of reform, but that more needs to be done to bridge contextual changes from the RET to the classroom, such as introducing more common language and explicit connections to classroom practice situations. Further supplying pre teachers with images of inquiry at the college level could help convey conceptions of inquiry prior to teaching.
Introduction
Well, here’s what the dream world was…the pipe dream was that I would take people out into the salt marsh. They would see and do this exercise [looking at periwinkles snails climbing up the marsh grass and inquire why]. They would see that yes, they could think scientifically, they think could do, inquiry, that they could do this and… they would go, ah ha! I see now what it’s all about. Now, I can take this into my classroom where I do thus and such and I can provide this experience to my students. That was my dream and so, of course, what I found was that just by doing the experience of science, the inquiry experience, it was…necessary but insufficient to get then to go into the practical realm, to be able to translate that into how they deal with their class, which was a disappointment for me, but a reality nonetheless. Dr. Henry “Cap” Baher, Program Co-PI, Reflecting on the first year of the MET program, Personal interview
The Marine Ecology for Teachers (MET) Program was the dream child of its two Principal Investigators (PIs), Dr. Kathleen Bransford and Dr. Henry “Cap” Baher (all names are pseudonyms). Dr. Bransford had frequent contact with classroom teachers through her outreach activities as director of a science center at Southern Central University (SCU). In working with teachers in professional development workshops, with curriculum materials such as GEMS (Great Explorations in Math & Science), Kathleen became convinced that most teachers had very little contact with conducting
82
authentic science research, either in prior classroom experiences or in more realistic research settings. She and Dr. Baher collaborated on many projects and this topic came up frequently in their discussions, with Dr. Baher seeing the marine laboratory as a natural fit as a location for the teachers to have contact with inquiry-based science. He had been involved with teachers from a previous NSF-funded program at the university’s marine laboratory (Spiegel, Collins, & Gilmer, 1995), in which teachers carried out scientific research as coursework for a master’s degree program. In the MET program, Cap and Kathleen planned to expand the earlier program timeframe, and also to promote the development of the participants’ pedagogical content knowledge (Dutrow, 2005). Dr. Bransford and Dr. Baher wrote the grant with the intention of attracting and serving teachers from around the state. At the time, The National Science Foundation funds, under its “Teacher Enhancement” grant umbrella awarded Cap’s and Kathleen’s MET program five years of funding, beginning in fall of 2000. The summer MET program would alternate between SCU’s nearby marine laboratory and a national fisheries laboratory in a coastal community a few hours away. The program invited K-12 teachers of science to participate in this commuter, field-based program, providing the teacher participants authentic, inquiry-based scientific research experiences (Dutrow, 2005; Granger & Herrnkind, 1999). The model of the program was essentially Cap’s method for conducting inquiry (Lappert, 1996). The MET program was the invention of Cap and Kathleen. As such, it represented intentions and goals that they set out to achieve with teachers who participated in the program. As Cap’s introductory quote indicates, the MET program was not static, but changed each summer after program staff evaluated what had taken place. Indeed, after the first summer, changes were made in key pedagogical aspects of the program to help teachers better translate their learning to their classrooms (Dutrow, 2005). The purpose of this chapter is to understand what Kathleen and Cap understood inquiry to be in the year following the 2004 MET program, what they intended to accomplish with the MET program, and how those conceptions meshed with those of the program teachers and compared with those of other scientists. As such, the questions guiding this research are: What are the MET program Principal Investigators’
83
conceptions of inquiry-based science and their goals for the teachers in the MET program?; How do the PIs’ conceptions compare to those of the program teachers?; and What are university scientists’ conceptions of inquiry?
Theoretical Framework
In recent years, a growing number of science education researchers have written about the lack of contact most classroom teachers have had with scientific inquiry or conducting inquiry-based science in their classrooms (e.g., Abrams & Southerland, 2003; Anderson, 2003; Windschitl, 2004). Inquiry-based teaching lacks a universal definition, even within the field of science education (e.g., Moss, 2003; Olson, in review; Settlage, 2003; in review; Settlage & Blanchard, in review). In part, because of this, few science teachers are carrying out inquiry-based science teaching in their classrooms (e.g., Keys & Bryan, 2001; Woodbury & Gess-Newsome, 2002). The National Science Foundation (NSF) has increased funding in recent years for Research Experiences for Teachers (RETs), as a way to bridge the gap between science teachers and scientists (Southerland et al., 2003). The MET program at CSU was one such program, albeit one with a non-traditional design. “Typical” RETs connect individuals with scientists, usually in a formal setting. In there situations, the person who joins the research as a learner typically studies what the scientist is studying, rather than coming up with their own research questions (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002; Dixon, Wilke, & LaFrazza, 2005; Schwartz & Lederman, 2004; 2005). In contrast, in the MET program the intention was for teachers to develop questions from their own observations in the field, and to conduct research with the assistance of scientists. An underlying rationale for the MET program therefore was that, in conducting their own scientific research, teachers would gain an understanding of inquiry-based science and would then be able to transfer their learning to the classroom, thereby improving the science instruction (i.e., inquiry-based science teaching) in their classrooms (Granger & Herrnkind, 1999). The MET program started with this rationale in mind, but within the first year learned that experience with authentic science research plus limited discussion of how to
84
translate this back into the classroom was necessary but not sufficient for the development of the pedagogical content knowledge necessary for inquiry-based science teaching (e.g., Dutrow, 2005). Previous literature has asserted that in order for substantive changes to take place in how teachers leaving preservice programs understand inquiry-based teaching, changes must take place in the way they are taught in their undergraduate programs (Southerland et al., 2003). A natural extension of this argument is that in order to change the teaching practices of inservice classroom teachers, changes must take place in the instructional methods of teacher professional development, as well. Certainly, providing professional development experiences to teachers has been recognized as an important way to assist teachers in implementing inquiry-based science teaching in their own classrooms (Blanchard, Daigle, & Malcom, 2005; Bodzin & Beerer, 2003; MacIsaac & Falconer, 2002). In funding RET’s, the NSF sometimes funds a university science education/scientist team, as it did with the MET (e.g., Granger & Herrnkind, 1999), although more often it funds a scientist funds for working with teachers (e.g., Dixon et al., 2005). The prevailing idea is that if, in fact, teachers are lacking scientific research experiences, who better could provide an experience with authentic science research than those who conduct research themselves and who have the content knowledge so often lacking in the backgrounds of teachers? However, the culture of sciences is very different from the culture of education (Balinsky, 2006). In professional development centered in a scientific laboratory with a scientist in the lead position it seems fair to question the nature of the professional development teachers will receive in such a setting. Some questions that might be addressed about RET’s include: How do we best convey inquiry to teachers? Are university scientists appropriate to convey authentic science research to them? What is it that scientists will convey to the teachers with whom they interact? There is scant connection in the literature between scientists’ conceptions of inquiry and how they portray those conceptions to their students. What is present, however, are a few studies that try to gain an understanding of university scientists’ views of inquiry. In Harwood et al.’s (2002) study, fifty-two scientists’ conceptions of inquiry were elicited using semi-structured interviews, with the goal of assembling a list
85
of the characteristics scientists used when discussing scientific inquiry. The categories broke out into ones related to the “investigator” and those related to the “investigation” (p. 1080). Top “investigator” characteristics were: making connections; connections to other disciplines; focus on process; analytical skills; persistence; and critical thinking. Top characteristics of “investigations” included: literature-based; a testable question; meaningful question; repeatable; multiple methods; systematic; and verifiable Another example of an attempt to classify scientists’ views of inquiry is Schwartz & Lederman’s study (2004) of twenty-four practicing scientists. Categories that emerged as important and relevant to conducting inquiry were justification, data, reproducibility, and prediction, which seem to fit under Harwood et al.’s characteristics of “investigations.” A more recent study of the authors, scientists also discussed the role of inference and using models (Schwartz & Lederman, 2005). In an earlier study of Cap, one of the MET program’s PIs, Lappert (1996) described how Cap embraced four roles as he interacted with teachers in a methods course: scientist as teacher; as coach; as guide; and as gopher. Southerland, et al. (2003) found that scientists’ beliefs are enacted in the curriculum, at times perhaps even undermining their planned curriculum. As a model of inquiry, the MET program set out to impact teachers’ conceptions of inquiry, and through these experiences, to shape the teachers’ translation of inquiry into classroom practice (Granger & Herrnkind, 1999). In light of Southerland et al’s (2003) research, it seems particularly salient to understand the conceptions of inquiry held by Kathleen and Cap, the program PIs, as well as their intentions and goals for the MET program and then to compare them to those scientists’ conceptions of inquiry in the literature, and those held by ten secondary teacher participants of the MET program. Figure 4.1 is an illustration of how the goals and intentions of the MET program, as an exemplar of an RET, potentially impacts the conceptions and enactment of the inquiry by those teachers who participate in the program.
86
PIs’ goals and intentions of MET program Teachers’ conceptions of inquirybased science teaching
Teachers’ and PIs’ conceptions and enactment of inquiry-based science teaching completely l t
Teachers’ enactment of inquiry-based science teaching
Less Successful Program
Very Successful Program
Figure 4.1. A Conceptual Framework for the Intentions of the MET Program. Previous research suggests that teachers’ and their students’ value structures (Beck & Cowan, 1996) influence how they understand the world, and therefore, how they interpret their experiences and select to change (Davis & Blanchard, 2004; Blanchard & Southerland, 2006; Yalaki, 2004). [See Table 2.2 for a summary of Beck & Cowan’s values structures.] In Davis and Blanchard’s (2004) study on student learning in a statistics classroom, differing value structures between the instructor and his students impeded the students’ learning and served as points of frustration with the instructor and his students. In Blanchard and Southerland’s (2006) analysis, teachers filtered their enactment of inquiry through the goals and values they held for their teaching, thus influencing the way they conducted inquiry-based teaching in their classrooms. In this chapter, the stated conceptions and goals of the Co-PI’s, with respect to the MET program, are analyzed through Beck & Cowan’s value structure lens, as a way to understand what Kathleen and Cap valued, in their roles as scientists/science educators who are working with teachers in a professional development experience.
87
Methodology and Methods
Naturalistic Evaluation The literature supports the need for inquiry-based science teaching that incorporates context as a major focus (Anderson & Helms, 2001; Davis & Helly, 2004; Keyes & Bryan, 2001; Yore, 2003). A methodology that emphasizes the importance of context is naturalistic evaluation (Guba, 1987). In naturalistic inquiry, the researcher is an important instrument for data collection and analysis, and as such must have experiences that are comparable with the stakeholders in the study (Erlandson et al., 1993). As the researcher for this study, I spent two summers deeply engaged in the MET program, thus gaining an integral understanding of the nature of the program as well as personal relationships with the Co-PI’s of the MET project. Additionally, I experienced the 2003 program as the teachers did, participating fully in all activities. In some ways, my multiple roles in the program gave me different ways to interact with the participants and the program, thereby allowing for more layers of interaction and ways of gaining meaning from the data I collected. This interactive process of data collection and analysis is a critical feature of naturalistic evaluation (Erlandson et al., 1993).
Data Sources The data used for this chapter are: 1) interview data of the Co-PIs of the MET program, Dr. Kathleen Bransford and Dr. Henry “Cap” Baher; 2) Pre and post program questionnaire data on teachers’ conceptions of inquiry the ten secondary science teachers from the MET cohort in 2004; 3) Interview data from teachers to corroborate evidence questionnaire data 3) Data gleaned from the literature describing university scientists’ conceptions of inquiry.
Interview Data of PIs The PIs each were interviewed once for approximately one hour, following the 2004 MET program, using a set of interview questions. Both participants were sent the questions ahead of time. The interview questions were as follows:
88
Structured interview questions for the MET program PI’s: 1) What do you see as the differences between science inquiry and inquiry-based science? 2) Which of these do you think the MET program modeled? 3) What goals or visions did you have for the program? 4) If you went to the classroom of a teacher from the MET program, what would you have to see to consider the program a “success?”
Teacher Conceptions Data Pre and post program data from teacher questionnaires were used to ascertain teachers’ conceptions of inquiry. Teachers responded to these questionnaires after teaching either a ‘typical’ or ‘inquiry-based’ science lesson, which they were asked to review. Using a rubric I developed based on Gallagher and Parker’s (1995) Secondary Science Teachers Analysis Matrix, I coded teachers’ responses into the following categories: inquiry; content; teacher’s actions; assessment; student’s actions; and other factors. These categories organized all of the teachers’ responses according to the degree they were teacher centered or learner centered (see Chapter Five for a detailed description of this coding process and see Table 5.2 for the accompanying Teacher/Learner Inquiry Continuum). These are the questions: Pre/Post program Questionnaire for Teacher Participants 1) How would you define an inquiry investigation? (Please include the key characteristics) 2) What aspects of your case study lesson demonstrate the presence of, or absence of, the characteristics of an inquiry investigation? 3) What are the primary learning goals for this investigation? 4) Why have you identified these as the primary learning goals for this investigation? 5) Why is the use of inquiry an appropriate, or inappropriate, approach for addressing your goals for these students? 6) What aspects of your case study lesson demonstrate your specific action(s) to facilitate the characteristics of inquiry to meet your learning goals for these students?
89
7) Which aspects of the investigation were effective, or ineffective, in terms of reaching your goals with this group of students? Why do you think so? 8) What would you do differently if you had the opportunity to pursue this investigation in the future with a different class?
Scientists’ Conceptions from the Literature Harwood et al. (2002) first gave me ideas for how to categorize scientists’ conceptions of inquiry, by characteristics of investigations and the investigator. I supplemented this with recent articles on scientists’ conceptions of inquiry (Southerland et al., 2003; Schwartz & Lederman, 2004; 2005).
The Process of Coding
Initial coding was done using my interview questions as a framework for categorizing Cap and Kathleen’s responses. What became clear, however, was that the PIs’ responses were not necessarily aligned to the questions I asked. In trying to understand what I saw as a disconnect, I realized that Questions #1 and #2 were made with a priori assumptions by me about Cap and Kathleen’s conceptions of inquiry. Tobin has called this a set of expectations (2000, as cited in Harwood et al., 2002). For example, my first question made the assumption that the PI’s saw scientific inquiry and inquiry-based science as inherently different constructs. Indeed, an email I received prior to my interview with Kathleen served as an early indication that this very issue might be problematic. Kathleen’s pre-interview email said, “I think I need a little clarification on your first question.” And I wrote back, For Question #1: I am interested in knowing whether you think there are differences between the science done by scientists and the science done in science classrooms. Hopefully that clears it up. In the literature, they call the classroom science "inquiry-based science", although some say that "authentic" science is possible (scientist science), necessary. I want to know where you and Cap shake out on this issue, what your intentions were in terms of the MET program.
90
Secondly, although I had set out to analyze these data first, they actually were coded last, after all of the teachers’ conceptions of inquiry and enactment of inquiry had been analyzed. Therefore, when I re-read the interviews with Cap and Kathleen, it was clear that there were differences between how they talked about inquiry and the way the teachers had, particularly pre-program. Instead, I coded all the transcript responses that dealt with my overall topic (in this case, What is inquiry? What are the PIs goals for the teachers?), and noted repeating ideas. I clustered repeating ideas into ‘themes,’ “an implicit topic that organizes a group of repeating ideas” (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003, p. 38). I then compared the conceptions of the MET program PIs, the teachers, and the scientists in the literature.
Findings
In this section I present the cases of Kathleen and Cap. Each includes the PI’s background and individual data supporting their individual conceptions of inquiry and goals for the program. I then summarize the findings and discuss how they illuminate the PI’s values and goals. I then put Cap and Kathleen’s data together and compare it to comparable data collected by Harwood et al. (2002) and data collected analyzed on the ten secondary science teachers in the MET program.
Kathleen Scientific thought processes in the scientist’s lab (or in the field for those kinds of disciplines) take an incredible amount of practice and an incredible amount of content knowledge…which is a sophistication level that comes with experience. Once you have this content knowledge and practice, then your practicing of science will be done in a different way than is possible in the classroom. That said, there are some fundamental skills and thought processes, I think, that we can start teaching to K-12, kindergarten on up and you build these things just like you do anything else in education. Dr. Kathleen Bransford, Personal Interview
91
Program PI Background Dr. Kathleen Bransford is a tall, thin, energetic woman with dark blonde hair. She is very detail oriented and focused, but also quick to see humor in situations. As the director of Science Connections (a pseudonym), she heads up an array of science education programs, which necessitates her “keeping lots of balls in the air.” It is rare to go into her office and not see someone waiting to talk with her, while she wraps up a phone call and simultaneously eyeballs a new email that has arrived. When she is in, her door is rarely closed, a testament to her interest in the interactive nature of her work and her openness to handling whatever walks in the door, so to speak. Kathleen’s Ph.D. is in neurobiology, and her science research includes work on evolution of neural pathways for audition and on the neural correlates of taste and aging. After 14 years as director of Science Connections, Kathleen manages all she has to do without breaking a sweat and with good humor. I was shocked to discover she does not drink coffee, but not to learn that she runs most days during her lunch hour, as that is the time she can fit exercise into her busy schedule. Kathleen’s role in the MET program was instrumental, in the sense that she and Cap came up with the idea for the program, based on successful elements of a brief prior program he had devised, and she primarily wrote the grant. She has an excellent track record for receiving external funding, a tribute not only to her writing skills, but also to her ability to meet deadlines and complete the work associated with the reporting aspects of the grant work. She has the challenge of meeting the needs of local science teachers and schools, yet justifying her existence to the CSU administration. Kathleen is adept at hiring competent people to deal with the details of the many programs she directs, and manages to stay involved while not micromanaging the day-to-day details. In my two summers with the MET program, she was in attendance on three days of each of the programs (which lasted for 25 days, each). One day she went along on a boat ride; on another she and a program staff member conducted a GEMS inservice for the teachers; and on a third day, she listened to some of the student presentations of their final research project findings. Every other day during the MET program was committed to other program obligations.
92
Kathleen’s Interview Data Conceptions of Inquiry Kathleen conceptualized scientific inquiry as one general term, with layers of sophistication as the distinction between what she called a “young scientist” in the classroom versus a “scientist in the lab.” Although Kathleen talked about classroom science using a variety of terms (e.g., demonstrations, guided inquiry, cookbook labs), she did not delineate inquiry-based science from scientific inquiry, specifically. Rather, they differed primarily in the level of development of the person conducting the scientific inquiry, the level of sophistication. Kathleen definitely thought of inquiry as a continuum of experience involving one basic process. For instance, when commenting on how teachers of the MET program may differ in their enactment of inquiry, Kathleen said, [In the MET program] [w]e are dealing with people who are already trained as teachers. Some of them already have some background in science and some of them don’t and you’ll see this reflected in the science that they do in the marine experiences program-- there are different levels of sophistication in the science that different ones of them do. But, they all, despite their varying levels of sophistication, model scientific inquiry. Some may be at a lower level of sophistication than others, but they all model scientific inquiry. Aspects of scientific inquiry, mentioned multiple times by Kathleen, included the components of practice, content knowledge, skills, techniques, and thought processes. The higher up you went educationally in science, the more sophisticated all these components would be. The experiments that you come up with [at the graduate level] are going to be very much more sophisticated because they have so much of a background of knowledge, some of which is original research that you’ve done yourself (so it is knowledge that only you hold) and so the way you think about scientific inquiry is going to be so much more mature than the way you thought of it before graduate school, or before undergraduate, or before high school. But those are…I mean, it’s an education process just like everything else. It all builds. A distinction Kathleen acknowledged between scientific inquiry and inquiry in schools was its purpose and focus. In the classroom, Kathleen thought a teacher used
93
inquiry, if at all, was used to reinforce concepts or learn techniques; whereas for a scientist, although it was important that they knew the appropriate techniques, these functioned as ways to collect data, with the ultimate goal of answering original research questions the scientist had generated. [W]hen you’re in the lab, as a scientist, a lot of what you do is follow protocol, which is very much cookbook science, but you come up with the experiment that employs those protocols…[For example] I’m going to run gel electrophoresis on this set of samples because gel electrophoresis will help me answer a particular question that I’m interested in about these samples…when they do it in the high school lab it is almost always just for the skill of doing the gel electrophoresis….So, that’s what I mean by cookbook science. [Students] are following a protocol, but they’re not coming up with the scientific reason for following that protocol. The science that’s done in the classroom is meant to reinforce something that is being taught rather than the thing that is being taught being how to come up with a question of your own and then how to find the protocols or techniques to help you answer that question. They don’t get to think about the reasons for why, the possible explanations, for that question and how to test those possible explanations—that’s not what’s being taught in the classroom. Kathleen also discussed differences in the type of guidance a person received, as a scientist versus a student: When you are a scientist, the guidance is coming from things you can read, things you can talk about with your colleagues, but for the most part there are not as many sources of guidance.
Goals for Teachers in the Program When I asked Kathleen about her goals or visions for the program she said it was “to provide that opportunity for [teachers] to really do something more…of an open ended inquiry experience, that they had ownership of.” Kathleen was thinking of the MET program as an experience that could push teachers further along in thinking what was possible in their classrooms, as Kathleen clearly believed inquiry was possible at all levels, from kindergarten on up. She thought the MET program probably modeled
94
inquiry “on the level of undergraduate marine research type experiences” with the caveat “in cases where the undergraduates are given control of coming up with the question and with some guidance figuring out a way to test the question.” When I asked her what she would need to see in classrooms in order for her to consider the MET program a ‘success,’ Kathleen felt it was necessary to know where the teachers had started. She explained, I’ve been involved in professional development long enough to know that we can move some people a long way toward new teaching practices and you can move others just a tiny way and some people aren’t going to move at all, unfortunately. That’s just the way life is—human nature—so much goes into influencing each individual teacher’s readiness for change.... if I see that somebody has moved just a little ways, then I think we have been, in some measure, successful with them. Kathleen described a growing sense that multiple RET experiences were necessary in order to really make a difference in how the teacher was able to take the experiences and make sense of them. Kathleen had recently attended a workshop in Rhode Island, with program staff and one of the outstanding MET teachers, Melissa, to learn more about RET’s and teacher change. Melissa, who had participated in an Earth Watch experience before she was a teacher participant in the MET program, told Kathleen, I was really primed for your program because I had already had this one experience and then I did your program and it [MET] also talked about the transfer to the classroom and really got us thinking about the classroom more than the other RET, which was to just more jump into some body’s project, help them collect data and then write up a lesson plan. Kathleen further shared her feeling that the way the MET program was structured made it perhaps a more worthwhile experience than those of other RET’s. One of the things that makes us a little bit more successful, I hope, is that with this one RET experience, we give them two research experiences, the science research and the research on the pedagogy of inquiry. Whereas the other teachers I was listening to up at the meeting were saying it really wasn’t until I
95
went on my second RET that I really started thinking like, ah, I can do this and I can make this happen in the classroom.
Kathleen’s PI Values and Goals Throughout my interview with Kathleen, I tried different ways to gain an understanding of how she thought about inquiry and any possible differences between inquiry-based science and scientific inquiry. I asked her opinion of an assertion by Carla (one of the staff scientists’): “If we let everybody really do inquiry, all their experiments would fail.” Kathleen thought about this for a minute, then shook her head and explained, I’m not sure that that’s true, because I think that depending on what their motivation was, they might be able to come up with successful work…[I]t took me several years of graduate school before I was starting to get successful results, but I had incredible motivation to do it. That’s what I wanted to do and it just took a long time to learn how to do it at the level of sophistication that it took to do, you know, the particular kinds of brain research that were done in my field. In thinking about this response, I realized that Kathleen’s frame of reference for scientific inquiry comes primarily from her own research experiences in neurobiology. Certainly, she has gained an understanding of what is happening in science classrooms, both through her direct experiences in her Science Connections program and her own children’s enrollment in local public schools. Yet, Kathleen sifts her conceptions of inquiry through her lens as a scientist. Everyone can do inquiry, even at less sophisticated levels, if they have the curiosity and motivation. Therefore, the values of self-motivation, hard work, independence, and perseverance are ever present in how Kathleen discussed inquiry and how she carries out her own work. These values align closely with the Rationalistic level of Beck & Cowan’s (1996) model, which stresses individual accountability and achievement. Unprompted by any questions from me on the topic, Kathleen brought up the subject of some of her readings on school reform; [W]hen I first started reading a lot of reform based science and constructivist thought, you know, that we should let children construct completely what they
96
know about science—I thought, well, yeah, in a perfect world where you had unlimited resources, unlimited time, and perfect motivation on the part of the students, that would be the way most of them would learn all science. That is the way science evolved, but we don’t have any of those things in the classroom so we have to give students a range of experiences along a continuum of inquiry so that they can progress…because it speeds them along with the process a bit and it does help them to construct their own knowledge—each one, but in a different way. In this passage, Kathleen shows her practical side, which values efficiency yet is still concerned about student learning. Clearly, she values students’ and teachers’ learning for its own sake. This, and her concern for students and her understanding of the differences between people correspond to Beck & Cowan’s “egalitarian” values level. Kathleen is an interesting mix of these two values levels, because her concern is held in check by the more “efficient” aspects of her make-up.
Cap I believe that the process of learning how to do science is a process and ultimately, if one wishes to go that far, a professional researcher…In a lot of ways [this process] starts with some of the same first steps…So I don’t really distinguish that level at step one. It’s not a baby step. It’s the first step up a staircase and you can get off and start inquiring on any floor you want. Cap Baher, Personal interview Program PI Background Dr. Henry “Cap” Baher is a very tall, slim, white-bearded man with a laid back, friendly demeanor who frequently is dressed in shorts, a t-shirt, and sandals. He has been a professor at CSU for all of his 30+ year post-doctoral career. Despite his low-key style, Cap received a named professorship at CSU, and is internationally renowned for his work in the field of marine ecology. In his career he has mentored 16 Ph.D. and 23 M.S. recipients, published 100 scientific papers, co-directed an award-winning marineeducation program for middle-school students, and won several university teaching awards (Dutrow, 2005).
97
Cap said he was lured to his graduate education with a desire to “be Jacques Cousteau,” and during a MET program presentation of some of his science findings, showed photos of him working as a crew member on Cousteau’s boat, The Calypso. Cap spent five years as the director of CSU’s marine laboratory, living there part of the time. He loves the water and marine life, and this enthusiasm and interest is present in all of his conversations on the topic. He is a bit understated in his achievements. During one of the early gatherings of MET teachers in the 2004 cohort he said, What is science but to be able to generate questions? I am a research scientist. I don’t really know much science. I mean, I’m not a science authority. I just know how to ask questions. Cap selected marine ecology, instead of pursuing the high school teaching career he was invited to pursue as a college student (he has a minor in education). But he has a keen interest in teaching and learning, which is responsible for several of his educational ventures, including the MET program. What many research scientists might constitute as a waste of their time, Cap relishes making a difference in the lives of school children. He is particularly interested in finding ways to capitalize on the natural curiosity all children, indeed all people, have about the natural world.
Cap’s Interview Data Conceptions of Inquiry Cap conceptualized scientific inquiry as a process that was accessible to all people, starting simply with being observant about the world around us. He found it to be a “matter of experience, reinforcement and being massaged along a little bit.” I think anybody of, we’ll call it, normal intelligence can think scientifically. For some it comes easier than other, which I notice, but more than anything else it is being guided through that process early on and have it reinforced and it becomes self-reinforcing after a while. You gain confidence of hey, I can figure this out and then you can do it. Inquiry included the components of curiosity, asking questions, proposing potential solutions, familiarity and trust in the process, and a way of thinking.
98
Occasionally inquiry used special equipment, techniques and methodologies, but those were not necessary. Cap disputed the notion that doing inquiry at the less sophisticated levels was something less than inquiry. It’s like saying to a kid, who finally figures out how to structure a sentence, and say now, you haven’t really done writing. You haven’t really done prose. The kid is going to use the same process twenty years later when he writes a Pulitzer Prize winning report or novel, or whatever…. I view doing scientific process in the classroom…[as] indeed something essential and a model of what will be incorporated into much greater works later. Cap distinguished between beginning levels of inquiry and higher levels based upon the level of sophistication in the question posed and the hypothesis, and the level of content knowledge of the scientist.
Goals for Teachers in the Program Cap thought the MET program represented a model of “what scientists do” and he wanted the teachers to have “an experience doing scientific process from that baseline level” so they could “experience for themselves the doing of science and gain confidence.” He imagined a teacher thinking, I see what inquiry is. I see what the process is. Now I’m going to go into my realm and I’m going to come up with something that I can present to my class as an inquiry exercise going through those kinds of experiences. Therefore, the intention was that teachers would adapt this process of inquiry into content that was appropriate for the age and content areas that they taught. He was clear that he wanted the MET experience to be supportive, saying “It’s got to be positive. It can’t just be we did the experiment and the results are in chaos.” That’s why he thought it was important to have someone who knew the content to be there to assist the teachers as they learned. This corroborates with evidence in the literature of the usefulness of guidance when teachers attempt new practices in their science classrooms (Bencze & Hodson, 1999; Luft, 2001; Meadows, in review)
99
One of Cap’s concerns was that, due to the more superficial ways in how some the teachers had learned their subjects, those teachers did not have deep content knowledge. He thought that this content knowledge was essential to carrying out inquiry with their students.
Cap’s PI Values and Goals During the interview, Cap brought up the issue that it is important for people to understand science rather than just “accept the word of scientists who are, to them, applying some magical kind of incantation to get the information.” In this way, he is expressing values that correspond with Beck & Cowan’s Rationalistic level. Cap thinks if you teach people how to do inquiry, give them the skills, then they can make informed choices about the world. Education gives people the tools to help themselves. But Cap also said, “science is so important to human existence.” He commented that once you know how science operates you “recognize two things…the power of it and…the shortcomings of it.” This level of scientific understanding would enable people to “realize there is a process that they can demonstrate to themselves…that will deliver— that really works.” Cap’s obvious dedication to education as well as this desire to instill scientific literacy for the betterment of society, correspond to Beck & Cowan’s Egalitarian value level. But Cap is also demonstrating that he has very sophisticated views of science, a view that is not likely to be in concert with those of much different backgrounds and experiences, such as teachers. Anderson (2002) refers to this when he talks about the National Science Education Standards serving a diverse group, and other, such as Windschitl (2004) talk about in terms of levels of experience. Cap also spent some time discussing the need for better model of inquiry at the university level, pointing out that “every one shares that college experience when teaching. [But] I think it has to root all the way down into the lower grades.” Indeed, Cap couldn’t think of a level of education in which it would not be beneficial for students to have experiences with science inquiry.
100
Summary of Kathleen’s and Cap’s Data Kathleen and Cap have very similar views of inquiry. They both describe it to be a process that varied, not in essence, but in sophistication as the participants increase their content knowledge, skills, and other areas of development. The program PIs’ conception of inquiry along a continuum are consistent with the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 2000). Cross Case Analysis of Data
Hawood et al. (2002) interviewed fifty-two university scientists on their conceptions of inquiry. Their findings are summarized in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1. Frequency of Characteristics used to describe Inquiry Investigator and Investigation (adapted from Harwood et al., 2002). Investigator Make connections Connected to other disciplines Focus on process Analytical Persistent Critical thinker Flexible/open minded Problem solving Observant Curious Meticulous Logical Decision maker Willingness to be wrong Collaborative Communicator Objective Creative Disciplined Skeptical Wired differently Think outside the box Manual skills Patient Active searcher Organized Moral Enthusiasm
# times coded 33 29 26 24 20 19 18 18 17 17 17 17 17 17 16 15 14 13 12 10 9 9 8 7 7 7 5 4
Investigation Literature-based Testable Questions Meaningful Question Repeatable Multiple Methods Systematic Verifiable Scientific Method Serendipity Falsifiable
101
# times coded 38 34 24 16 15 15 13 12 8 4
Harwood and is co-authors used grounded theory to develop an open coding scheme for the characteristics the scientists when discussing inquiry. The interview questions covered the scientists’: definition of inquiry; characteristics of scientific inquiry; earliest inquiry experience; skills necessary to do inquiry; description of ways scientific inquiry requires higher order thinking skills; examples on inquiry; its value; who should do it; at what age; and what else would they like to add (p. 1080).
Harwood et al. (2002) looked for patterns and tallied responses of the group of scientists, which they later converted into the categories listed in table 4.1 under the main headings of “investigator” and “investigation.” The frequency of the times they coded each response in that category is indicated in column to the right of the category. How did the scientists’ responses compare with those of Cap and Kathleen? Certainly, there were areas of agreement. Problem solving, creative, a focus on process, and using testable questions all resonated with characteristics of inquiry discussed with Cap. Additionally, Kathleen had discussed the importance of being systematic and analytical, as well as developing skills. In these and possibly other ways, I imagined Kathleen’s and Cap’s descriptions of inquiry characteristics to be aligned with those of other university scientists. However, Kathleen also talked extensively about developing a teacher into someone who can do inquiry. She made multiple references to development and to ways inquiry might be carried out in settings other than the laboratory. Cap talked about thinking “scientifically” and repeatedly made references to the more global values and limits of science. In these ways, the PIs conceptions of inquiry encompassed a larger parameter than those of the university scientists interviewed by Harwood et al. (2004). For Cap and Kathleen there was a link to the outside world, which included the world of teachers. But how did the PIs conceptions of inquiry compare with those of the ten science teachers in the study? The teachers’ pre and post questionnaires were coded onto the Teacher/Learner Inquiry Continuum. Each of the sentences on the questionnaire, or in
102
some instances parts of the sentence, were coded as teacher or learner centered. For ease of understanding these data, I selected the learner centered data, pre and post program, and entered those into Table 4.2.
Table 4.2. Overview of Teachers’ Pre and Post Program Conceptions of Inquiry, in terms of Learner Centeredness. Learner Centered Concept Data in % Pre Inquiry Post Inquiry Pre Content Post Content Pre Teacher Actions Post Teacher Actions Pre Assess Post Assess Pre Student Actions Post Student Actions Pre Other Post Other Pre Totals Post Totals
Michael
Nate
Charity
Kaitlin
Princess
Sage
Rogue
Max
Jamilla
Sherilyn
8
7
7
6
5
0
10
17
0
2
17
7
4
5
0
0
14
17
5
3
4
0
23
6
10
5
15
17
5
11
24
14
19
5
19
8
24
8
15
13
16
0
7
0
20
8
5
30
20
0
31
0
4
0
3
5
19
4
23
19
4
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
7
0
0
3
0
0
0
5
0
20
0
19
27
35
13
30
8
22
16
27
7
24
61
49
13
33
39
25
19
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
29
4
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
45
7
34
40
7
27
60
14
41
32
44
64
58
72
81
31
90
70
51
54
This table presents summary data of the teachers, in terms of how learner centered they conceived of inquiry through the classroom categories of: inquiry, content, teacher actions, assessment, student actions, and other categories, such as use of time and classroom management. These categories were used because that is how the teachers 103
wrote about inquiry (see Chapter Five for a full discussion). Totals in the bottom two rows indicate the percentage of responses the teachers were student centered, pre versus post program. What perhaps is most striking in the teacher data is the lack of a direct link from scientific inquiry to classroom practice. Indeed, all but the statements specifically coded in the category “inquiry” dealt with some references to what was occurring in the classroom during inquiry. Pre program, content is couched in terms of the book or what the teacher tells the students, whereas post program the content relates more to aspects such as the students generating questions. Almost all of the teachers had a clear shift to talking more about what the learner was doing during inquiry in their post program responses. A direct overlap between teacher conceptions and those of the program PIs and the scientists was not evident. In thinking more globally, I thought about differences between the teachers, scientists, and the program PIs purposes in doing inquiry. The purpose for the investigation seemed to vary depending upon who was conducting it (i.e. a teacher or a scientist) so I incorporated this aspect into Table 4.3.
Table 4.3. Inquiry Comparison between Scientists, MET Scientists, and Classroom Teachers of MET Program. Classroom Teachers from Who? Harwood et al.’s MET Scientists 2004 MET program for (2002) Scientists Cap & Kathleen for classroom students teachers in program What? Following protocol Following protocol Cookbook labs To learn protocol, “cover Purpose? Collect data & answer To learn the protocol content” Questions & also answer questions Answer questions they Secondary students answer What? Answer questions generated question given by teacher generated by scientists Get an answer to the Gain basic Purpose? Get at a deeper question understanding of the understanding of the topic topic I revised Harwood’s table, then culled through the descriptions of “investigators” and “investigations” in Cap’s and Kathleen’s transcript data and the teachers’ preprogram questionnaires to see how the three groups compared. The scientists from the 104
Harwood et al. (2002) were focused on science from the perspective of uncovering truth through creative investigations. Replication, procedures, and rigor were essential to doing scientific inquiry well, the purpose of which was to answer questions in order to get at a deeper meaning of a particular topic. The MET scientists, although they also valued creativity and used protocol and sought answers to questions, had the purpose of teaching the teachers the process of inquiry and wanted the teachers to gain a basic understanding of inquiry within the context of marine science. Although the investigations sought answers to the teachers’ questions, they were undertaken in order to learn the stages of inquiry, as they defined them in the MET program. When the classroom teachers returned to their classrooms, their purposes were for students to learn protocol as a way of being able to conduct the labs, but their main goal was to teach content within the unit they were studying.
Discussion and Implications
As scientists, Kathleen and Cap had sophisticated views of inquiry. They saw inquiry along a continuum, which corresponds with the model in the NSES standards (NRC, 2000). They also conceptualized inquiry in ways that were aligned with each other, and therefore, the program was able to put forth a coherent model of inquiry based upon Cap’s way of doing science. The program PIs’ conceptions also aligned with many of those scientists in the literature (Harwood, et al., 2002; Schwartz & Lederman, 2004; 2005; Southerland et al., 2003). However, the PIs had spent many years developing the MET program, as well as other research experiences and related programs for classroom teachers. As such, Cap and Kathleen thought about inquiry, not just in terms of the science laboratory, the marine laboratory, or research itself, but with a goal in mind of conveying the process of science to teachers and to those teachers’ students. In this way, Cap and Kathleen were science educators in addition to being scientists, and these goals and conceptions helped to bridge the gap between the teachers and university scientists. Clearly, Cap and Kathleen valued helping teachers understand and translate the inquiry model to their classrooms. Their values aligned at Egalitarian and Rationalistic
105
levels, and they were committed to conveying the model of inquiry and to make a difference in the classrooms of those teachers. They were knowledgeable enough about the likely experience levels of the teachers to model a program that was well understood by the teachers, at a level of Schwab’s level 1 or 2 inquiry. That is, the model provided support, but also allowed the teachers to develop their own questions and research design (Dutrow, 2005; Settlage & Southerland, in review). Yet, it is clear that the teachers’ conceptions did not overlap to any real degree with either the university scientists, or Cap’s and Kathleen’s conceptions of inquiry (Blanchard & Muire, 2005; Davis & Helly, 2004). Just as the university scientists thought of inquiry in the context of the activities they did while in the laboratory, the teachers’ conceptions embodied concrete aspects of inquiry as it would look in their classrooms (Schwartz & Lederman, 2004; 2005; Southerland et al., 2003). The program had the teachers create a template of a lesson they would teach when they returned to the classroom following the RET experience. A substantial amount of time was spent working on this lesson, but there were not examples of the teachers’ classroom conditions or context in the program model itself, a “missing link” to the classroom. Scientists such as Kathleen and Cap who value classroom education and helping teachers with inquiry are appropriate to work with science teachers. In particular, the PIs’ focus on reflection on the part of the teachers to understand the program model assisted the teachers in their learning (Borko, 2004; Helly, 2002; Luft, 2001). However, attempts to move the conceptions of the teachers and the PIs closer together might assist the teachers in better understanding the model in terms of their lived classroom experiences (Osborne, 1998). Program PI’s could incorporate more classroom-based language and issues and later could solidify some of these ideas in to their own conceptions of inquiry. Another idea might be for the teachers to connect their thinking of the classroom to the lab by teaching their lessons while still at the marine laboratory. Another implication is the need for those who educate teachers to address notions of inquiry and to expose their students to more positive science experiences as undergraduates (Tobias, 1992).
106
CHAPTER FIVE FINDINGS
BE MINDFUL OF WHAT YOU MODEL: SECONDARY TEACHERS’ EVOLVING CONCEPTIONS OF INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE TEACHING Abstract It is argued that one of the difficulties with inquiry-based science is that few science teachers have experience with inquiry and thus possess very naïve conceptions of scientific inquiry. One way to address this issue is to provide teachers with professional development experiences, such as an NSF-funded, research experience for teachers (RET). This study follows nine experienced, secondary science teachers who participated in a five-week, field-based marine ecology program. The question was asked: How have the teachers changed in their conceptions of inquiry-based science teaching following their participation on the program? Questionnaire data related to teachers’ conceptions of inquiry were collected and analyzed pre-program, after the teacher taught what they believed was an inquiry-based lesson, and again post-program, after teachers taught an inquiry-based lesson they designed during the RET. I found that the teachers’ post-program conceptions of inquiry were more learner-centered and that assessment and classroom management faded as concerns. Indeed, teachers incorporated many aspects of their post-program questionnaire responses in the concrete experiences of the RET. This research suggests that a strong program model can greatly impact the conceptions of the teachers who participate. It also sends a cautionary note that a strong professional development program potentially limits teachers’ notions of inquiry-based science teaching.
107
Introduction
I think inquiry science is very appropriate for these students as it easily lends itself to hands-on science experiments. However, because my students have severe behavioral problems it is not always possible for them to run experiments without a lot of structure. One of my main goals is for students to develop a love of science, but at the charter school were I am currently teaching I have had to modify my goals with regards to students’ needs, which includes a lot of structure, guided experiments and an environment that does not encourage inappropriate behavior. Charity, 9th grade aquatic science teacher
This research represents an attempt to make greater sense of a ubiquitous challenge often faced in professional development programs with secondary-school teachers of science. Teaching science in middle- and high-school settings is a unique and contextually dependent process, and certainly different from the more formal methods and processes of scientific inquiry practiced by actual scientists (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002). Additionally, recent studies (Anderson, 2003; Windschitl, 2004) suggest that most teachers have very little experience with inquiry in a formal scientific sense, and thus possess very naïve and informal conceptions of inquiry. Moreover, because there are such vast differences between the work of teachers and the work of scientists, it is a rather impracticable notion to expect the scientific inquiry models as practiced by scientists to be replicated in secondary-school classrooms. Rahm et al. (2003) assert, “…school science is best perceived as a form of science practice that by its nature will always be different from what real scientists do” (p. 739). In informal discussions, teachers routinely express this counter-intuitive nature of trying to replicate the more formal models of scientific ‘inquiry’ in secondary-school settings. Palmer (1995) reports that the needs of secondary-school teachers are both varied and complex in terms of class size, class time, available resources to teach science, and the sheer number of students per day that the average secondary teacher is required to
108
teach, to name a few issues with which most secondary science teachers contend on a routine basis. This is a concern that has been well documented in the literature and has been the focus of special sessions on inquiry at national science education conferences in the U.S. (e.g., Abrams & Southerland, 2003; 2006). Simultaneously, many state curriculum frameworks advocate that school science content and activities be designed and delivered to facilitate inquiry-based science lessons with students that are consistent with the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996). The initial definition of inquiry in the NSES Chapter 2: Principles and Definitions states: Scientific inquiry refers to the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on evidence derived from their work. Inquiry also refers to the activities of students in which they develop knowledge and understanding of scientific ideas, as well as an understanding of how scientists study the natural world (p. 23).
Still later, in the NSES Chapter 3: Science Teaching Standards, one finds: Inquiry into authentic questions generated from student experiences is a central strategy for teaching science. Teachers focus inquiry predominantly on real phenomena, in classrooms, outdoors, or in laboratory settings, where students are given investigations or guided toward fashioning investigations that are demanding but within their capabilities (p. 31).
Clearly this initial definition from Chapter 2 places emphasis on inquiry as practiced by scientists, while the Chapter 3 definition emphasizes a focus on student experiences. Anderson (2002) acknowledges these varying perspectives when he writes, ‘It is well to remember that [the NSES] is a political document, based on an attempt to find consensus among the various educational, scientific and public constituencies in the realm of science education’ (p. 1). Inquiry is presented as a continuum in the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996). At one end inquiry is the quite guided, Schwab’s level 0 inquiry (Colburn’s structured inquiry), and at the far end is scientific or authentic inquiry, Schwab’s level 4 (Colburn’s open ended inquiry) (Chinn & Malhotra,
109
2002; Settlage & Southerland, in review; Schwartz & Lederman, 2004). The professional development program in this study perhaps best fits in the middle of the continuum, a form of collaborative inquiry, Schwab’s level 1 or 2, Colburn’s guided inquiry (Crawford, 2000; Settlage & Southerland, in review). In assisting teachers to enact inquiry, it is clear that there are competing goals that can be confusing to teachers: should our science lessons be focused on the experiences of real scientists, with its focus on process, or of our students’ learning of class material, with a focus on concepts (Driver, 1983, as cited in Wellington & Osborne, 2001). The National Science Education Standards follow up document on inquiry, Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards (2000) emphasizes that all of these foci are important for teachers to employ as appropriate to the desired learning outcomes. This research represents an attempt to understand how teachers make sense of these issues, how they are thinking about inquiry-based science both before a professional development experience and then after they have enacted inquiry-based science teaching in their secondary-science classroom contexts, post-program. How teachers would internalize their new understandings of inquiry within the context of their classrooms was unclear (Osborne, 1998). There is a paucity of literature on teachers’ enactment of inquiry in classrooms, or follow-up in general on professional development programs (Borko, 2004; Fretchling, 1995). Teachers’ conceptions are the focus of this research, which is part of a larger dissertation study. Thus, the primary question guiding this research was: How have teachers changed in their conceptions of inquiry-based science teaching following their participation in the MET program?
Program Context
MET program, a Research Experience for Teachers The Marine Ecology for Teachers (MET) program was designed to provide opportunities for secondary science teachers to participate in field-based research with mentor scientists as guides and resident experts, and to engage in deep reflection upon what this means for their science teaching practice (Granger & Herrnkind, 1999). During the five weeks of the MET program the teacher participants conducted inquiry-based
110
experiments in the salt marshes and coastal ecosystems of the area and concurrently, through carefully constructed activities, reflected upon the research experience itself as a methodology for teaching science (e.g., Dutrow, 2005). In the final week of the program, teachers adapted a lesson from their content areas, based upon a model of inquiry that they developed through the reflection activities facilitated by the scientists and educators leading the MET program. The stages of inquiry that were developed and modeled by the program leaders were: Stage 1) orientation (safety/comfort); Stage 2) fieldwork (experience a provocative phenomenon/experience that inspires questions); Stage 3) debriefing (students generate questions from observations); Stage 4) experimentation (design/conduct experiments); Stage 5) data analysis (analyze/display/write up results); and Stage 6) presentation (students present and discuss their findings with the whole class). Once the teachers returned to their classrooms, they were asked to teach the inquiry-based lessons (they’d developed in MET) with their own students, videotape a portion of it, and answer a post-program questionnaire about their conceptions based on this lesson.
Rationale When teachers decide what to teach and how they will teach it, they are essentially making claims as to what they determine to be appropriate (Apple, 1979, and McNeil, 1988, as cited in Osborne, 1998). Keys and Bryan (2001) review a body of literature showing that curriculum reform efforts are shaped and altered by teachers’ beliefs and understandings of the local context. According to Bybee (1993) and Haney and Lumpe (1998, as cited in Anderson, 2002) , teachers are the ‘change agents’ of educational reform and that they must be seen as integral components if reforms are to be successful. Anderson (2002) writes,
It is common to talk about barriers or obstacles that must be overcome for teachers to acquire an inquiry approach to teaching…but much of the difficulty is internal to the teacher, including beliefs and values related to students, teaching, and the purposes of education…It is not unusual to think of learning to teach through inquiry as a matter of learning new teaching skills. It is that, but it is also
111
much more (p. 7).
Indeed, in their model of systemic reform, Woodbury and Gess-Newsome (2002) describe teachers and teacher thinking as at the center of reform. Parke and Coble’s (1997) transformational model with middle-school teachers provides evidence that teachers who are actively involved in the reform process are more likely to change. Their program engaged teachers in redesigning curricula, reflecting on their practice, and learning more about science content. Harwood et al. (2004) research suggests that teachers' beliefs influence how they teach content. Therefore, I believed it was critically important to gather data of teachers’ beliefs about scientific inquiry both before the MET experience and after they designed and implemented their so-called ‘inquiry-based lessons’. If we look at teachers' values and beliefs using Kegan's (1994) psychological developmental hierarchy, we learn that for teachers to change their teaching at the level of consciousness requires that they change their feelings about how they teach, what they understand teaching to be, and what they believe and value about teaching. Beck and Cowan (1996) use value structure codes to describe how an individual generally operates, such as whether they conform to authorities or are individualistic (See Davis & Blanchard, 2004, for a detailed description of Beck & Cowan's Value Structures). Using these models, we can see that a teacher who sees him or herself as the authority in the classroom and who values student conformity will be less likely to conceptualize and enact the new roles involved in inquiry-based science teaching. It is suggested that providing teachers with professional development experiences in scientific inquiry is necessary to help practitioners implement inquiry-based science teaching in their own classrooms (Bodzin & Beerer, 2003: Davis & Helly, 2004; MacIsaac & Falconer, 2002). If the program had an effect, then one might expect to see a shift in teachers’ conceptions to shift from thinking in terms of what the teacher is doing to shift the focus on the student. Crawford (2000) discusses this in terms of embracing new roles for science teachers; Davis and Helly (2004) discuss the change as a power shift.
112
Methodology
The teachers in this study are teaching inquiry in the context of their publicschool classrooms. This requires a translation from the milieu of the marine lab to that of their classroom (Habermas, 1989). The contextual factors of conducting science inquiry in a research laboratory and in a public-school classroom are very different (Keyes & Bryan, 2001). Changing the context perhaps even changes the knowledge itself (Osborne, 1998.) In fact, the contextual factors are both complex and poorly understood. Dilemmas that teachers experience as they try to implement reform are largely contextdriven: time, classroom reality versus an ideal; changing roles and the nature of the work; a focus on preparation for the next grade and/or examinations; and equity (Anderson & Helms, 2001; McRobbie & Tobin, 1995). Naturalistic evaluation (Guba, 1987) is a methodology that incorporates context as major focus, and therefore was employed.
Participants Of the teachers who participated in the 2004 MET program, all thirteen secondary-science teachers were invited to participate in this study. This paper is based upon data from nine of these teachers from the dissertation study, displayed in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1. Teacher Participant Overview. Name*, Ethnicity, Gender, Age, Degrees Sherilyn, AA Female, 32 B.S. biology
Years of experience
Classroom descriptions
Pre/Post Lesson topic
School context
5
10th Biology
2200 students, urban, public school.
Princess, AA Female, 48 B.S. Criminology M.S. Special Education Ed. S. in progress, Special Education
15
6th special education science
Genetic crosses Seed germination Mosquitoes Factors influencing plant growth
113
850 students, 90% AA, 51% free and reduced lunch
Table 5.1. Continued Michael, 4 AA Male, 32 B.S. biochemistry
11th chemistry
P,V, & T relationships, 1 day
9th Physical Science
Bottle rocket flight, 11 days Egg structure & function, 1 day
9th Honors integrated science
Kaitlin, AA Female, 43 B.S. biology, M.S. in progress, science education
8
Sage, EA Female, 33 B.S. Culinary Arts
4
10th Food Prep
Nate, EA Male, 36 B.S biology M.S. Science education
4
10th biology
Exam review session, 1 day
11th Marine science
Wave action, 8 days
Rogue, EA Female, 34 B.S. Secondary science education
11
7th Integrated science
Physical & chemical changes, 1 day
Charity, EA Female, 25 B.S. Biology M.S. Biology
2
Mark, EA Male, 31 B.S. English Education
7 (3 in science)
9th Aquatic science
10th Integrated Science
Soil absorption, 4 days Baking soda & Vinegar reaction Mold growth
Light & color wheels, 3 days Betta fish behaviors
Rural, grades 8-12, 33% AA, 33% W, 33% H, “D” rated school, NW FL
1000 students, Former Title 1 school, mid-sized urban setting, 80% AA, “C” rated school, NW FL
Large, middle class school in a mid-sized town with somewhat rural population. 1850 students, 75% W, historically prominent public high school, primarily lower to upper middle class, mid-sized urban setting, “B” rated school, NW FL. 90% W, middle class, rural-suburban, “A” rated school, NW FL
Betta fish behaviors
500 students, highly mobile population, middle class, approx. 48% W, 52% H/AA, suburban
Shark organ structures & functions Soil filtration
1850 students, 75% W, lower to upper middle class, mid-sized urban setting.
(AA-African American; EA-European American)
114
In terms of teacher demographics, I observed that the teachers had a wide range of differences, including: age, years of experience, location, subjects taught, and content developed for their inquiry-based lesson.
Data Collection and Data Analysis
Data Sources The primary data sources for this research were the pre- and post-program questionnaires that teachers completed before and after a five-week, field-based marine ecology research experience at a marine lab in the southeastern US. The pre- and postprogram questions were: Pre/Post-program Questionnaire 1) How would you define an inquiry investigation? (Please include the key characteristics) 2) What aspects of your case study lesson demonstrate the presence of, or absence of, the characteristics of an inquiry investigation? 3) What are the primary learning goals for this investigation? 4) Why have you identified these as the primary learning goals for this investigation? 5) Why is the use of inquiry an appropriate, or inappropriate, approach for addressing your goals for these students? 6) What aspects of your case study lesson demonstrate your specific action(s) to facilitate the characteristics of inquiry to meet your learning goals for these students? 7) Which aspects of the investigation were effective, or ineffective, in terms of reaching your goals with this group of students? Why do you think so? 8) What would you do differently if you had the opportunity to pursue this investigation in the future with a different class? Before participating in the program, teachers were required to videotape either a ‘typical’ or ‘inquiry-based’ science lesson. They then responded after viewing to the preprogram questionnaire, which focused on their understanding of inquiry and inquirybased teaching. Some teachers re-tooled their pre-program inquiry lesson during the MET program, but most developed a different lesson, which they taught post-program.
115
Of the teachers included in this paper, only one, Charity, taught the same content both pre- and post-program, although the length of the lesson differed, as detailed in Table 5.1.
Support for Conceptions of Inquiry Several methodological challenges emerged during my quest for understanding the teachers’ conceptions of inquiry. The first was grappling with the meaning of the term ‘conception’. I found that teachers, embedded in their practices, defined inquiry in what I would describe as a more ‘practical version’ than what I had earlier envisioned. That is to say, in almost every statement made by the teachers, it became apparent that the responses were heavily embedded in the language of their practice. After a thorough first reading of the teachers’ responses, my initial reaction was ‘these are not conceptions; the teachers are discussing curriculum enactment’. In an overarching sense, it appeared that teachers’ responses to the items posed on the questionnaire were focused on specific instructional actions and their conceptual model of inquiry had a concrete and practical focus. The teachers’ responses had little to do with their general philosophies or theories about inquiry and were directly related to very specific actions and activities used in their practice of teaching science as inquiry. I speculated that one possible reason for this focus was related to the nature of the questions themselves. Since the intent of the program questions was to ascertain teachers’ central beliefs on the nature of inquiry, questions were purposefully open-ended, such as, ‘What are the primary learning goals for this investigation?’ and ‘What aspects of your case study demonstrate your specific actions…’? Retrospectively, the language used in the questions may have produced this so-called ‘concrete or practical’ focus that was apparent in the teachers’ responses. Perhaps this was a flaw in the questions themselves, and it should have been recognized beforehand that teachers’ beliefs are inextricably tied to their classroom practices. Additionally, the teachers responded to the questions after reflecting upon or watching videotape of their science lesson, further linking their responses to classroom activities. Despite the possible oversights in the focus of these questions, I believe the data gathered in the questionnaires are useful in helping teacher educators and others to make sense of teachers’ perceptions and images regarding scientific inquiry.
116
Table 5.2. Teacher/Learner Inquiry Continuum, with Data Samples Coded. (LC=Learner Centered; TC=Teacher Centered) LC
Somewhat LC
Somewhat TC
Students take lead on some aspects, such as predictions and trying to answer questions. Student prior knowledge and curiosity a focus. Content involves some student interaction, partially focused on processes, some relevance to students. Students encouraged to ask questions, allow students to make mistakes, guide students in their thinking.
Teacher as facilitator, guided inquiry.
What scientists’ do, removed from students, fixed “scientific method.”
Content delivered by teacher, but some student participation, responding to questions. Address student questions in discussion, use questions, asks student questions on factual material, monitor students. Grades for “on task” behavior and for answering teachers’ questions, focus is on matching teachers’ knowledge. Dialogue so teacher can gauge problems, adjust thinking to teacher ideas.
No examples or interconnections, focused on factual content, delivery, no hand-on content, focus on state standards/tests. Direct instruction, identify misconceptions, monitor behavior, focus students on content.
Students thought it was social time, lab took a lot of class time.
Not enough teacher control without handouts.
Inquiry Metaphors and Definitions
Focus on student learning, hands-on doing, exploration, observations, studentgenerated questions.
Content
Connections to real world, ideas are related, connections to students’ lives, interactive.
Teacher’s Actions
Teachers act in support of student learning, actions.
Assessment
Multiple forms of assessment, some formative; focus on investigation findings and presentations.
Students generate presentations with teacher guidance, mix of factual and investigative knowledge accounting for grade.
Students’ Actions
Students actively participate in learning, experimentation, creating questions, etc.
Other Factor(s) mentioned by Teacher
Time didn’t allow for more in-depth student investigations, student interest promotes retention.
Students assume more responsibility, make predictions, gather data, learn content, use science skills. Students assumed more responsibility for their learning.
TC
Tests and quizzes over factual material.
Answer teacher questions, review for a grade.
Thus, I thought it was important to find an analysis tool that could accommodate the teachers’ qualitative statements about scientific inquiry with professional practice. Eventually, I modeled my rubric, the Teacher/Learner Inquiry Continuum (TLIC) (see 117
Chapter Three) on many of the aspects found in Gallagher and Parker’s (1995) Secondary Science Teaching Analysis Matrix (SSTAM), which was designed to document classroom behaviors in a Constructivist classroom. Examples of typical teacher responses from the questionnaires are coded into the TLIC, in Table 5.2. Another research issue that arose was dealing with questionnaire responses that often were written as fragments, and discerning a way to gain understanding of what the teachers meant without further dissection of brief responses. I realized I could only understand the teachers’ meanings by keeping responses a part of the questionnaire as a whole, which allowed us to refer to other responses within the document to further support and confirm interpretations. In this way, I saw patterns and gained a holistic sense of the teachers’ conceptions. For example, the final response to the pre-program questionnaire and the mood it conveyed was very useful in elucidating teachers’ conceptions pre-program, and how those differed from the corresponding post-program response allowed us to compare differences in terms of teacher versus student centeredness. I coded one sentence or phrase at a time, usually placing a shorthand explanation of the sentence or phrase in the rubric square that it best matched according to the wording of the response as framed from the perspective of what ‘I’ (the teacher) was doing or what ‘they’ (the students) were doing. I explore this process in detail in the findings section.
Findings
My goal in teaching is to produce students who are capable of using science as a way of knowing, to aid them in making informed decisions as professionals, consumers, and citizens. Inquiry investigation describes what science is and how it is practiced. While I don’t think it’s practical to expect the process of inquiry as seen in the scientific community to be mimicked completely in classroom activities, I do believe we can model these processes and use them to facilitate learning of scientific concepts that will serve to insure students are scientifically
118
literate in using various scientific processes, as well as gain an understanding and appreciation for how scientists construct knowledge. Michael, 11th physics/10th physical science teacher Pre-Program Questionnaire, Item #1 Teachers’ responses to pre-program questionnaire questions indicated a wide range of responses. Some of the teachers like Michael (quoted above) had conceptions that were fairly sophisticated (note his focus on scientific literacy as a goal; Michael had completed a graduate course in educational theory prior to participating in the MET program). Other teachers essentially listed the steps of ‘the scientific method’ when they defined inquiry. Max, a 9th grade integrated science/10th grade biology teacher who had majored in English, gave a response to the same question that was less grounded in experience in scientific inquiry, yet still was indicative of a rudimentary understanding of some of its features (below).
I think an inquiry investigation is a line of questioning designed to get students to think beyond what they see or read. I see some of the key characteristics as questioning students, pressing them to think about connections between what they already know and what they are working on in class, focusing on allowing students to make these connections for themselves. Additionally, and this is not necessarily shown in my case study, it should be as student focused as possible. Max, 9th grade integrated science/10th grade biology teacher Pre-Program Questionnaire, Item #1.
My task was to develop a method that would delineate out these differences between the teachers’ conceptions.
Coding of Questionnaires Nate’s responses to the questionnaires are used to demonstrate the process I used in arriving at my findings. In Table 5.3 all of Nate’s responses are depicted in the matrix using a shorthand version, which represents my best interpretation of his responses to the questions. If something similar was written multiple times, I recorded and counted all of
119
the times it was written. Comments that did not specifically relate to conceptions of teaching were not coded. (Note: There were very few of these on any of the questionnaires.) Here is an example to demonstrate the coding technique: On his preprogram survey, Nate wrote, ‘Inquiry teaching is a paradigm which allows the teacher to become less the imparter of knowledge, and more of a guide for the investigations of students’. I coded this as somewhat teacher centered in the Inquiry Metaphors and Definitions category and wrote ‘teacher as guide’ for shorthand in Table 3. Concerning what teachers do, Nate wrote, ‘Inquiry teaching builds on the natural curiosity of the student, providing a way for the teacher to use the curiosity as motivation for learning’. I coded this entry as two statements. The first half, ‘Inquiry teaching builds on the natural curiosity of the student’ I coded as somewhat student centered in the category ‘Inquiry Metaphors & Definitions,’ and wrote ‘natural curiosity of student’. I coded the second half of the statement as a ‘Teacher’s Actions’, and wrote ‘Teacher uses curiosity as motivation for learning’ in the somewhat teacher centered category for teacher actions. Therefore, I took the teachers’ pre-program questionnaires and coded them line by line into categories, using the words the teacher had selected to guide us in how to determine where to code each statement. I took care to code the pre and post questionnaires separately from one another to keep from biasing my coding of data. Table 5.3 includes the coding for all of Nate’s pre-program responses; his post-program questionnaire responses are coded in Table 5.4. Often teachers wrote about a process that had both a teacher and a student component. I categorized responses based on how the teacher framed the situation. For example, ‘Students are guided in their investigation by the teacher’ would have been coded in the student category because it was framed as such, whereas ‘The teacher guided the students to conduct their investigations’ would have been coded in the teacher category. Indeed, it was interesting to see the changes in the frequency with which a teacher used the first person pronoun “I” versus a third person noun ‘the student’, between the pre- and the post-program questionnaire responses.
120
Table 5.3. Pre Program Questionnaire Coding: Teacher/Learner Inquiry Continuum for Nate. (LC=Learner Centered; TC=Teacher Centered). LC Inquiry Metaphors and Definitions
Somewhat LC Prior knowledge, interests and natural curiosity of student
Content Structure, Examples or Interconnections Teacher’s Actions
Somewhat TC Teacher as guide
Teacher uses curiosity as motivation for learning
Assessment
Students’ Actions
TC
Exam review at the knowledge level; focus students on recall content Poses questions on knowledge questions, particular content; asks questions for classroom management Exams based on recall of facts given by teacher; structures, uniform; “covers” knowledge Review for a grade; answer teacher questions
Other Factor(s) Mentioned by Teacher
If you compare Table 5.3 and Table 5.4, you can see that the focus of Nate’s preand post-program questionnaire responses was quite different. In the PRE-Q, Nate’s conceptions are focused on what he, the teacher, is doing. For example, the teacher causes students to be motivated, controls all of the lesson content, and exams are a recall of facts that have been memorized. Students’ actions are written as being in response to the teachers’ questions.
121
Table 5.4. Post Program Questionnaire Coding: Teacher/Learner Inquiry Continuum for Nate. (LC=Learner Centered; TC=Teacher Centered) LC Inquiry Metaphors and Definitions
Content Structure, Examples or Interconnections
Conduct fieldwork; experiment to test students questions
Somewhat LC Students are allowed to choose topic; gently guided by instructor
Somewhat TC
Discover physical properties of ocean waves
Introduce students to PowerPoint; Waves important topic that taught physical properties Adjust time frame on Power Point and overall lesson as it took too much time
Teacher’s Actions
Assessment
Students’ Actions
TC
Paper or presentation for students to share findings Learners organize and interpret data; generate own questions; indepth experiments All aspects (experiments, Power Point) took a long time
Other Factor(s) Mentioned by Teacher TIME
Contrast this with Nate’s POST-Q responses (Table 5.4). Here Nate describes all sorts of student-initiated activities: generating their own questions, experimenting to find answers to student questions, and writing a paper or giving a presentation to share their findings. There is still a sense that the teacher is “guiding” the student in their learning, but Nate uses much more student centered language to describe the nature of the interaction in contrast to what he wrote prior to the MET program.
122
For Nate, the main source of conflict in implementing inquiry-based instruction was the issue of time, or efficiency. Nate pondered this issue when he wrote,
Was the increase in test scores due to inquiry activities or simply due to increased time spent on the topic? Also, while waves are an important aspect of marine environments, they do not warrant this much class time due to the amount of other topics which must be covered. I question the effectiveness of the lesson given the amount of time that must be spent in order to fully implement the lesson plan. Nate, 11th grade marine science Post-Program Questionnaire, Item #8 For Sherilyn high stakes testing mandates associated with the federal No Child Left Behind Act (2002) indicated that the local context was being heavily influenced by this constraint.
The California State Standards are very important here at Mountain View High School and I as a teacher have designed my lessons to reflect the main ideas from the standards in genetics. On our CST and CAT-6 standardized tests from 20022003 a lot of the biology students were basic and below basic. Sherilyn, 10th grade biology Pre-Program Questionnaire, Item #4 Displaying Data I coded each of the teacher’s responses using separate tables for each, and tried several ways to display these data. There is no compact way to represent all of the individual codings, so group pre- and post-program questionnaire responses are summarized according to whether the responses had been coded on the ‘teacher centered’ half of the continuum or the ‘student centered’ half. The resultant graphs are displayed in Figure 5.1 and Figure 5.2.
123
90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
TC Pre %
O th er
A en t St ud
A As se ss m en t
ch er Te a
on te n C
In q
t
TC Post %
ui ry
Percentage of responses
Teacher Centeredness on Pre and Post Questionnaires
A = Action Figure 5.1. Teacher Centeredness on Pre and Post Program Questionnaires (n=9). In Figure 5.1, there is a clear trend for the post-program questionnaires to have a less teacher-centered focus.
120% 100% 80%
LC Pre %
60% 40% 20% 0% O th er
A en t St ud
A As se ss m en t
Te a
ch er
t on te n C
ui ry
LC Post %
In q
Percentage of Responses
Learner Centeredness on Pre and Post Questionnaires
A = Action Figure 5.2. Learner Centeredness on Pre and Post Program Questionnaires (n=9) In Figure 5.2, we see a clear trend for the post-program questionnaires to have an increased focus on the learner rather than the teacher.
124
Comparing responses to the final question of the questionnaires A second type of analysis compared the teachers’ responses to the last question on the pre- and post-program questionnaires, as I had noticed that the tone and direction of the teacher responses were often quite different between the two. All of these were analyzed, but I selected exemplars for display. (Teachers who responded similarly are represented in quotes).
For example, a sample of the pre- and post-program responses and their analyses from Nate are: Nate Pre-Q: “In the future I will collect and grade the test/exam reviews to ensure that all the students are taking advantage of them.” Nate Post-Q: “I would better organize and prepare my students for creating their Power Point presentations…I would also like to work on shrinking the timeframe of the lesson to still include the basic characteristics and benefits of the inquiry lesson while holding the lesson to 3-4 days…in its current state it takes too long.” Analysis: In the final response of Nate’s PRE-Q, he described a desire for more teacher control. In the POST-Q, Nate discussed adapting what they are doing to make inquiry a more efficient experience. In coding these responses, I put Nate’s PRE-Q response as teacher centered, and his POST-Q as somewhat teacher centered. The coding of this response analysis is shown in Table 5.5. Sample responses were coded and grouped according to similarity as described above. The names of the teachers were inserted in the table where their responses were coded. Only one of the teachers did not shift toward a more student centered focus in her response to the final question, and that was Princess, who had a strong learner focus on her pre program questionnaire.
125
Table 5.5. Summary Last Question Responses, Pre and Post Program Questionnaires. (LC=Learner Centered; TC=Teacher Centered) [Originator of the quote is the name listed immediately following the quote.] LC Somewhat LC Somewhat TC TC PRE-Q
POSTQ
“…Allow [students] more freedom in pursuing questions…plan for a longer time in which to complete this lab and have a wider variety of tools for students to use.” Charity
“Start with a fresh topic and not give students background information first. I would give them a topic and let them report their findings to me in their own way.” Princess
“I need…activities that give students more opportunities to test the predictive power of scientific conceptions…I…need to recognize that different students may be in different places…” Michael (Charity’s response also coded here).
“I would make it a thematic unit incorporating Language Arts and Technology…Also, some students would have benefited from word processing skills, which were sometimes frustrating to them.” Princess (Michael’s response also coded here).
“I would have the students make their investigative question more concise.” Kaitlin
“In the future I will collect and grade the test/exam reviews” Nate (Kaitlin, Sherilyn, & Sage responses also coded here) .
(Sage & Sherilyn’s responses also coded here).
Another finding related to changes in the terminology of the pre- and postprogram questionnaires. Terms or processes that had been used during the MET program appeared on some of the teachers’ post-program questionnaires. All of the new terminologies are illustrated with teacher quotes in Table 5.6.
126
Table 5.6. Illustrations of New Terminology present on Post Program Questionnaires. New MET Teacher Quote Teacher(s) who used it Word/Term Princess Reflect “Once orientation is complete they [scientists] begin to reflect on their observations…” Data Graphs “These conclusions are then Princess arranged in a series of data graphs” Princess Further “Once these steps are completed Investigations scientists then identify questions for further investigations.” Nate Power Point “I would better organize and presentations prepare my students for Power Point (and Princess) presentations.” Charity Student…Ownership “…students were involved in (and Princess & Michael) experiments that they developed and had ownership of, which made them want to know the outcome.” Sherilyn Key Components of Orientation, fieldwork, debriefing, inquiry experimentation, data analysis, and (and Princess) presentation Provocative “I define an inquiry investigation as Michael Phenomenon a systematic process for getting an answer to an investigatible question about a provocative phenomenon (discrepant event) that is staged by the teacher…” Michael Tool Shop “A ’tool shop’ introduction… seemed to also help to expedite rocket construction.” The adoption of terms used in the MET workshop could indicate a growth in the teachers’ understanding of inquiry or simply that they were attempting to use terminology understood by those involved in the experience.
Discussion and Implications
What were the Changes in Teachers’ Conceptions of Inquiry? The teachers’ pre- and post-program questionnaires indicate clear differences. The original research question asked ‘How have teachers changed in their conceptions of
127
inquiry-based science teaching following their participation in the MET program’? An overall trend in the data was a shift to less teacher centered descriptions of inquiry. A corresponding trend was a shift to a more learner centered focus. This was likely a result of the reflective model that made clear to the teachers the active role of the learner (Borko, 2004; Luft, 2001). It seems clear that the inquiry modeled in the MET program pushed the teachers’ thinking toward a focus on the learner. There were variations in these patterns from teacher to teacher, for example, in Nate’s case, the emphasis was on being less teacher centered, while in Kaitlin’s case, the focus was being more learner centered. In specific areas, content was reported out as more authentic and of greater relevance to the students, with much less of a focus on fact delivery. Assessment and classroom management faded as a focus in the post-program questionnaires, replaced by a focus on student learning. These correspond to trends in constructivist classrooms, the pedagogy of which is compatible with that of inquiry-based science teaching (Gallagher & Parker, 1995; Dana & Davis, 1993). The assessment mentioned in the post-program questionnaire was primarily in student-focused presentations. For a few of the teachers there was a huge shift to a focus on student learning. Overall, there was less writing about teacher direction over what the students were doing in the post-program questionnaires. Almost all of the teachers included the use of questions in their descriptions: students’ coming up with questions, teachers helping students develop questions, making questions testable, etc. There is evidence that these changes were related to teachers’ involvement in the MET program because specific aspects, such as MET’s focus on questions, were also present on the teachers’ post-program questionnaires. The very vocabulary the teachers used was reflective of what had been modeled in the MET program. Terms such as provocative phenomenon and the use of a tool tour were direct imports from the program, indicating a large-scale acceptance of the language modeled in the program. Additionally, teachers talked about ‘key characteristics’ of inquiry, the stages of which had been clearly modeled and reflected upon in the program. There also was a strong focus by the teachers on questions, which was a very strong focus of the MET program. Indeed, during an early MET program session, Cap, a lobster biologist and one of the
128
Program PIs said, ‘What is science but to be able to generate questions? I am a research scientist. I don’t really know any science. I just know how to answer questions’. The use of inquiry raised new issues for some teachers, primarily concerns about efficiency and classroom use of time. Teaching using inquiry-based science was taking a lot of classroom time and some teachers expressed concerns about ‘content coverage’.
Why did these Changes in Teachers’ Conceptions occur? I believe it is because the MET program was a strong program model that engaged teachers in science research and reflection upon it for five weeks of their summer. The pre- and post-program assignment of videotaping and responding to the questionnaires evaluated in this paper increased teachers’ reflection on their practice and on aspects of inquiry modeled in the program. Teachers started in different places in their conceptions of inquiry. They also responded to the program in different ways. I assert this, in part, is due to differing levels of development (Beck & Cowan, 1996; Davis & Blanchard, 2004; Kegan, 1994). Those who operated primarily at an authoritarian level (such as Kaitlin and Rogue) interpreted the program from that perspective and had trouble allowing students to make mistakes and letting go of their classroom control. Others who operated at a rational, achievement-oriented level (such as Nate and Michael) found they were more comfortable with the inquiry model and were able to allow students more freedom in carrying on their investigations (Blanchard, Daigle, & Malcom, 2005; Davis & Blanchard, 2004). As often happens in educational research, data that emerges from the work of teachers is unpredictable. The researchers’ own images and definitions are biased and often conflict with the teacher participants’ descriptions and definitions. So more data, in the form of observations, clarifying emails, and more questions were needed simply to help the researchers understand what was unfolding. During this process I came to realize that the teachers’ stated conceptions of inquiry were almost exclusively rooted in the concrete experiences that were undertaken by them during the MET program. That is to say, it seemed as though the “inquiry model of the MET program” had become a solid mental framework for teachers’ conceptions about inquiry. After my initial review of the teachers’ responses, it appeared that the MET experience had been quite powerful for the
129
teacher-participants, so powerful in fact that I wondered if what was tentatively presented as only one model of inquiry, had perhaps unintentionally been interpreted by teachers as inquiry in an almost absolute sense. Hence, my caveat in the title: Be mindful what you model. As we saw in Nate’s program response to the question, ‘How would you define an inquiry investigation’? a strong vision and image of inquiry can mean that teachers with limited experiences will take on program aspects that can limit their views of what else it can be. Perhaps explicitly expanding the discussion of inquiry as a continuum would allow teachers to see that there are investigations that are more open-ended or guided than what was modeled. Indeed, there are also classroom activities that contain the five essential features of inquiry (NRC, 2000) that might not be called ‘inquiry’ by a scientist.
Implications
I believe that following their research experiences, teachers are primed for further experiences with reading and learning about inquiry and classroom research. This would be an excellent time to follow up with teachers to expand their understanding and help them to develop more sophisticated notions of inquiry-based science teaching. Teachers are then ready to examine state standards and standardized testing with a perspective of including the mandates while transcending to more rationalistic inquiry.
130
CHAPTER SIX FINDINGS
NO SILVER BULLET FOR INQUIRY: THE INTERACTIONS OF RET’S AND TEACHERS’ CONCEPTIONS OF TEACHING & LEARNING
Abstract It is argued that teachers must experience inquiry in order to be able to translate it to their classrooms. One particularly promising form of professional development allows teachers to have their own experiences with scientific inquiry, an example being NSF’s research experiences for teachers (RETs). As intuitively pleasing as such programs are, there is scant empirical support documenting the effectiveness of these programs. For this study, four secondary science teachers were followed back to their classrooms following a fiveweek, marine ecology RET, asking the following questions: How do teachers’ conceptions and enactment of classroom inquiry change after the program; what accounts for these differences; and what do these findings imply for future RETs? Findings indicate that teachers who had a sophisticated theoretical lens to understand teaching and learning were far more apt to use classroom-based inquiry throughout their teaching. Teachers with less sophisticated understandings upon entering the program were apt to cite contextual constraints as barriers to implementation of inquiry. This research suggests that experiences for teachers may be more effective if the participants are “primed” to learn from them, and that professional developers should consider preprogram work to allow teachers’ to explore, reflect upon, and revise their own conceptions of teaching and learning.
131
Introduction
Inquiry-based teaching is strongly recommended by American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 1993) and the National Research Council (NRC, 1996) as a strategy that emphasizes developing deeper student understanding of the everyday world. These reform documents clearly describe that teachers should be spending more time using inquiry-based instructional strategies in problem-solving contexts, and less time in didactic presentations of facts (Southerland et al., 2003). Bybee (2004, p. 9) writes, “Inquiry as a teaching strategy should capture that spirit of scientific investigation and the development of knowledge about the natural world.” Given its importance in the national reforms, it remains perplexing that most teachers do not know what inquiry in the classroom is (Abrams & Southerland, in progress; Anderson, 2003; Windschitl, 2004). One potential answer for why teachers are unfamiliar with inquiry is that inquiry is not how most teachers learned science (Granger & Herrnkind, 1999). Because of this lack of experience with true scientific inquiry, Anderson (2003) argues that most teacher candidates conceive of science as an “authoritative picture of how the world works” (p. 9), a view that is incompatible with a view of science that centers on a process of inquiry. However, in Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards, a critical follow-up analysis of inquiry in the Standards, the National Research Council states, “For students to understand inquiry and learn to use it in science, their teachers need to be well-versed in inquiry and inquirybased methods” (NRC, 2000, p. 87). How, then, are we to bridge the chasm between teachers’ views of an authoritative science and their embrace of inquiry in the classroom? It has long been recognized that providing teachers with professional development is fundamentally important if teachers are to implement inquiry-based science teaching in their own classrooms (Bodzin & Beerer, 2003: Davis & Helly, 2004; Granger & Herrnkind, 1999; MacIsaac & Falconer, 2002). More specifically, it is thought that in this professional development, teachers themselves need to experience all steps of scientific inquiry and to concurrently develop an understanding of what those steps are and how they can be taught in the classroom (Crawford, 2000). One of the ways to give teachers a vision of inquiry is to involve them in research experiences in which they
132
conduct inquiry. The National Science Foundation (NSF) has funded many such projects in the form of Research Experiences for Teachers (RET’s). In most of these programs, teachers engage in scientific research so that they experience all the stages of inquiry as a learner, with the understanding that this experience may translate into greater fluency with inquiry in the classroom (Granger & Herrnkind, 1999; Marx, Blumenfeld, Krajcik, Fishman, Soloway, Geier, & Tal, 2004). As intuitively pleasing as such programs are, there is scant empirical support documenting the influence these programs have on classroom teaching (Crawford, 2000; Frechtling et al., 1995). Indeed, as Frechtling and colleagues report, much of the data following teacher enhancement programs are self-reported, and positive results relate primarily to teachers’ high levels of satisfaction, increased confidence, and positive feelings of professional renewal and empowerment. The ways in which teachers actually implement inquiry in the classroom following professional have not been adequately studied (Marx et al., 2004; Yerrick, 2000). Given the promise represented by RETs for fostering teachers’ understandings and embrace of classroom inquiry, the goal of this research was to focus closely on teachers engaged in an RET program. The questions guiding this research were: A). How do teachers’ conceptions and enactment of classroom inquiry change following participation in a research experience for teachers? B). What seems to account for the differences in the depth and breadth of teachers’ changes? C). What are some possible implications of these results in terms of the design of future professional development programs?
Theoretical Frame of the Research
When teachers decide what to teach and how they will teach it, they are essentially making claims as to what they determine to be appropriate (Apple, 1979, and McNeil, 1988, as cited in Osborne, 1998). Keys and Bryan (2001) review a body of literature showing that curriculum reform efforts are shaped and altered by teachers’ beliefs and understandings of the local context. Bybee (1993) and Haney and Lumpe 133
(1998) assert that teachers are the "change agents" of educational reform and that they must be seen as integral components if reforms are to be successful. Anderson (2002) asserts that reform requires changes in teacher beliefs and values:
It is common to talk about barriers or obstacles that must be overcome for teachers to acquire an inquiry approach to teaching…but much of the difficulty is internal to the teacher, including beliefs and values related to students, teaching, and the purposes of education…It is not unusual to think of learning to teach through inquiry as a matter of learning new teaching skills. It is that, but it is also much more (p. 7).
Indeed, in their model of the systemic reform, Woodbury and Gess-Newsome (2002) describe that teachers and teacher thinking are at the center of reform. Parke and Coble’s (1997) transformational model of reform provides evidence that teachers (in this case, middle school teachers) who are actively involved in the reform process are more likely to change. Too, Harwood et al. (2004) describe that teachers' beliefs influence how they teach content. Therefore, I argue that it is critically important to gather baseline data of teachers’ beliefs about scientific inquiry both before and after a RET experience in order to understand the changes that are engendered through such programs. Although most teacher education research addresses the role of teachers’ conceptions and beliefs and their influence on their teaching practice (Gess-Newsome et al., 2003; Windschitl, 2004), I focused on teacher conceptions and beliefs through a developmental lens, using Kegan's (1994) psychological developmental hierarchy. An underlying assumption of my research was that RETs are about teacher change and development. Kegan’s developmental theory addresses “the forms of meaning regulation, the transformation of consciousness, the internal experience of these processes, [and] the role of the environment…”(p. 9). In Kegan’s developmental model, individuals evolve in the way they organize experiences as they mature. In this developmental process, experiences are not replaced, but are “subsumed into more complex systems of mind” (p. 9). Thus, during some points of development, when a person changes what she knows, she is changing “the way she knows” (p. 9). For
134
teachers to consciously change their teaching in any lasting way, they must change not only what they teach, but their feelings about how they teach, what they understand teaching to be, and what they believe and value about teaching. Kegan uses the term ‘worldview’ to refer to how an individual basically understands the world at any particular level of development. Cobern (1996) uses this term to describe how differing worldviews between students and teachers may interfere with learning. In an adaptation of Cobern’s theory, Beck and Cowan (1996) assign levels of development to differing worldviews, seeing some as more sophisticated or evolved than others. The term ‘value structure’ is preferred by Beck and Cowan as a more specific aspect of ‘worldview’; ‘value structure’ refers to the underlying values that shape a teacher’s actions within her classroom, values that may shift during different periods in a person’s life. (See Davis & Blanchard, 2004, for a detailed description of Beck and Cowan's discussion of value structures.) The developmental aspect of these models is that teachers may select to change what they are doing by examining their underlying feelings, and supporting this, their worldviews (value structures), and ultimately, at the most fundamental level, changing their beliefs and values. In both Kegan’s and Beck and Cowan’s models, when teachers select to change, and those changes are lasting, the teacher has developed. This research is informed by the worldview construct in order to understand the change (or lack thereof) undergone by teachers participating in an RET.
Methodology
If nothing stood in my way, we’d go to the beach and we’d look at waves… you can take beach profiles, a couple different places in the beach, you can compare the beach profile to how the waves broke, tied to the waves, and you could figure it out from that…[ It would take] maybe a day or two longer[but] they’d get more out of it than just waves because when they were at the beach they’d be seeing other things, they’d be asking other questions…that’d be great, I would love to teach wave science right next to the water.
135
Nate, interview, March 23, 2005
In this research, I follow four teachers who participated in a field-based RET experience in marine ecology, focusing on their understandings and enactment of classroom inquiry before and after the experience. Following this I describe what factors most influenced their professional development in this program. For these analyses, multi-case studies for four purposefully selected individuals are employed. The underlying premise of this study is that the transition from the field-based setting of the RET experience to a public school classroom is contextually an important one (Habermas, 1989). As Nate’s introductory quote reminds us, classrooms are necessarily limited, but the limitations are much more stark if one is comparing the resources ready at hand in an RET compared to a typical classroom. The contextual factors (time, materials, support, equipment, students) of conducting science inquiry in a research laboratory and those present when conducing classroom based inquiry are very different (Keys & Bryan, 2001), perhaps even changing the knowledge itself (Osborne, 1998.) Indeed, the influence of these contextual factors are both complex and poorly understood. Many of the dilemmas that teachers experience as they try to implement reform are largely context-driven: time; classroom reality versus an ideal; changing roles and the nature of the work; a focus on student preparation for the next grade; and equity (Anderson & Helms, 2001). The same was true for the teachers in this study. Naturalistic evaluation (Guba, 1987) was selected due to its foregrounding of the role of context. The teachers’ self-reported data were used as points of departure to establish a hermeneutic dialectic approach with teachers (Guba & Lincoln, 1989); that is, member checking the researcher’s understanding of teachers’ actions with the teachers, following data analysis. The member checking took place during the follow-up interview. It was theorized that my follow-up questions framed via the original responses of the teachers would help both the researchers as well as the teacher participants make sense of their beliefs about inquiry. I viewed this approach both as an attempt to value the emergent data of my teacher-participants, and give teachers additional opportunities to reflect on the RET experience (Davis & Helly, 2004.) This process included discussing teachers' individual experiences with inquiry, "to develop shared constructions that illuminate a particular context" (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen, 1993, p. 45).
136
Professional Development Context--MET Program Description
The four teachers in this study participated in the Marine Ecology for Teachers Program (MET), a professional development program funded by NSF (Granger & Herrnkind, 1999) and offered through a major university in the southeast (ESI-9819431). This program was designed to facilitate teachers’ understanding about inquiry both as a method for scientific research and as a strategy for teaching science. The resulting methodology engaged teachers in meaningful scientific research and a concurrent indepth study of what this means for their teaching practice. Through emphasis on this intersection of knowledge about doing science and knowledge about teaching science, teachers were supported in developing the necessary pedagogical content knowledge for teaching through inquiry (Gess-Newsome et al., 2003; Shulman, 1986). This MET design was mindful of the research that suggests that research experience offered in tandem with reflection on the teaching of inquiry is essential for teachers to internalize aspects of inquiry (Crawford, 2000). In the MET, two scientists and two master teachers were involved full-time for the 5-week duration of the program, working alongside the group of teachers in all aspects of research and pedagogy sessions. One of the premises underpinning the research portion of this model was that teachers need to experience all stages of scientific inquiry (i.e., scientific research) including: the original observation of a scientific phenomenon; development of their own research questions and hypotheses about that phenomenon; development of the research methodology to test their hypotheses; the research process itself; data organization and analysis; and reporting of the results. This differs from the traditional RET model, in which a teacher joins a research project already in progress in the laboratory of a scientist. Specifically, the MET model provided teachers with experience in making original observations on organisms in the marine environment. They performed short-term, basic research in ecology and ethology. This research did not require extensive expertise or complicated instrumentation. Structured inquiry, facilitated by the program staff of scientists and master teachers, began with the teachers’ own observations and extended through presentations of their own findings.
137
Concurrent with the research experience, the teachers engaged in an inquiry on inquiry-based instruction directed by two master teachers. This systematic reflection on the inquiry process was concurrent with and drew reflection upon the pedagogical features of their research experience using a hermeneutic dialectic (discussion/journal writing/written instructor responses/discussion/journal clarification/written instructor responses) process (e.g., Guba & Lincoln, 1989). The series of reflective journaling sessions were designed to facilitate conceptual change learning about inquiry and to support participants [teachers] in the process of constructing meaning of their experiences in inquiry, both as a method for research and as a strategy for teaching science. Systematically addressed through explicit and context-based science instruction, the details contained in the teachers’ journals represented a stage-by-stage descriptive account of their individual constructions of the pedagogical features of inquiry as a product of a systematic analysis of their own experiences in scientific research (Dutrow, 2005). In the summer of 2004, the four secondary science teachers at the center of this research were among a cohort of twenty-four teachers. In order to participate in the project, each of the teachers was asked to videotape an inquiry-based lesson and complete a questionnaire describing their conceptions of inquiry. Following this, during the fiveweek program, the teachers conducted two inquiry-based research projects, culminating with the adaptation of a lesson from their content areas using the model of inquiry they themselves experienced in the MET program. The stages of inquiry modeled in the MET Program were: Stage 1) orientation (safety/comfort); Stage 2) fieldwork (experience a provocative phenomenon/experience that causes you to ask questions); Stage 3) debriefing (students generate questions from observations); Stage 4) experimentation (design/conduct experiment); Stage 5) data analysis (analyze/display/write up results); and Stage 6) presentation (students present and discuss their findings with the whole class).
138
Once the teachers returned to their classrooms, they were asked to teach the inquiry based lessons that they had developed in MET, videotape a portion of it, and answer a postprogram questionnaire about their conceptions based on their inquiry-based lesson. Participants
The four teachers in this study were Kaitlin, Michael, Rogue, and Nate (all names are pseudonyms). Table 6.1 is a summary of the teachers’ years of teaching experience and their school context. The teachers were selected purposefully from a larger group of participants based upon a number of shared characteristics. All of the four participating teachers had strong content knowledge in science and taught at the secondary level. Their abilities and engagement were evident from the way in which they engaged during the MET program, and commented upon by program staff. On the first day, Nate acted much like one of the scientists, demonstrating his familiarity with the tidal organisms, and coming to the aid of novices to the coast. Rogue’s leadership and enthusiasm caused her to be tapped as a second van driver, and the program coordinator wrote her a glowing letter in support of her Teacher of the Year application. Both Kaitlin and Michael were seen as very serious participants who were capable and comfortable with the ideas in science. Michael, in particular, spent long hours re-working his inquiry lesson and revising portions of the research presentation. Too, all four of these teachers had a stated interest in further developing their teaching. Additionally, all of the teachers were very open and willing participants in this study, maintaining regular contact with the researchers and expressing interest in what would be learned through the study. It is possible that having such a willing group of teachers in the study provided us, in a sense, a ‘best case scenario’ for the results of an RET. What this scenario may have kept us from seeing were the pitfalls of the program, in that each of these individuals responded so favorably to the experiences of MET and each was so eager to learn. But, in selecting individuals with many similarities, I hoped to highlight the nature of any potential differences in what each teacher gained from the program.
139
Table 6.1. Overview of Teacher Participants. Name*, age, degrees (*pseudonyms) Kaitlin, AA Female, 43 B.S. biology, M.S. in progress, science education
Years of experience (post MET program) 8
Michael, 4 AA Male, 32 B.S. biochemistry
Classroom descriptions
Pre/Post Lesson topic, lesson length
School context
9th Honors integrated science
Egg structure & function, 1 day Soil absorption, 4 days P,V, & T relationships, 1 day Bottle rocket flight, 11 days Physical & chemical changes, 1 day Light & color wheels, 3 days Exam review session, 1 day
1000 students, Former Title 1 school, mid-sized urban setting, 80% AA, “C” rated school, NW FL
11th chemistry 9th Physical Science
Rogue, EA Female, 34 B.S. Secondary science education
11
7th Physical science
Nate, EA Male, 36 B.S biology M.S. Science education
4
10th biology
11th Marine science
Wave action, 8 days
Rural, grades 8-12, 33% AA, 33% W, 33% H, “D” rated school, NW FL
90% W, middle class, rural-suburban, “A” rated school, NW FL
1850 students, 75% W, historically prominent public high school, primarily lower to upper middle class, mid-sized urban setting, “B” rated school, NW FL.
(AA-African American; EA-European American) Data Sources
There were six sources of data employed to describe teachers’ understanding of conceptions and enactment of inquiry. These included: 1) Inquiry Questionnaire, Pre/Post Program; 2) Recordings of science lessons, pre/post. MET program videotapes/audiotapes of teachers conducting a inquiry-based lesson for question analysis (Huitt, 2004) and critical incident analysis (Crawford, 2000; Nott & Wellington, 1995);
140
3) STIR instrument (Bodzin & Beerer, 2003), post program. STIR was completed by researcher and teacher after the post program inquiry lesson, negotiated into one score (Guba & Lincoln, 1989); 4) Interviews, post program. Follow-up interviews to confirm researcher critical incident interpretations and teacher goals/values (Erlandson et al., 1993). 5) Participant observation. Teachers were observed and field notes were recorded during the RET experience, classroom observations, and conversations with teachers; and 6) Lesson plans and student materials generated by teachers for inquiry lessons. Each of these data sources will be described in more detail in the following section.
Inquiry Questionnaire, Pre/Post Program As part of the MET program, participating teachers were required to complete a questionnaire used to describe their conceptions of inquiry. The questions in this questionnaire included: 1) How would you define an inquiry investigation? (Please include the key characteristics) 2) What aspects of your case study lesson demonstrate the presence of, or absence of, the characteristics of an inquiry investigation? 3) What are the primary learning goals for this investigation? 4) Why have you identified these as the primary learning goals for this investigation? 5) Why is the use of inquiry an appropriate, or inappropriate, approach for addressing your goals for these students? 6) What aspects of your case study lesson demonstrate your specific action(s) to facilitate the characteristics of inquiry to meet your learning goals for these students? 7) Which aspects of the investigation were effective, or ineffective, in terms of reaching your goals with this group of students? Why do you think so?
141
8) What would you do differently if you had the opportunity to pursue this investigation in the future with a different class?
Recordings of Science Lessons, Pre/Post I used transcriptions from the classroom recordings of teachers’ classroom teaching as data to describe the teachers’ enactment of inquiry. Before participating in the program, teachers were asked to:
Make a video or audiotape of your own teaching. The tape will be your source of data for your responses to the questionnaire. The suggested guidelines for the tape are that it encompass a representative science lesson that includes your interactions with students and is about 30 minutes or longer in length time (J. Dutrow, personal communication, August 14, 2005).
Teachers’ acceptance to the program hinged upon the completion of this activity. For the post program enactment data, inquiry-based teaching episodes were recorded both via an audiorecorder mounted on the teacher and a camcorder that captured the class as a whole.
STIR Instrument, Post Program The STIR rubric was initially expected to function as another external verification of the teachers’ enactment of inquiry [see Table 6.5 in the Data Analysis]. Therefore it was to be a measure of enactment, not the teacher’s conceptions. Because it was completed after review of the transcripts (and with copies of the transcripts present, in most cases), the teacher and the researcher could verify what had transpired during the teaching of the inquiry lesson by referring back to the transcripts. In its original use with elementary teachers (Bodzin & Beerer, 2003) the scores of the STIR differed according to who filled it out. The researchers tended to score a lesson as more teacher-centered than the elementary teachers. One of my concerns was whether this would be the case in this research with secondary science teachers. A second function of the STIR instrument was as a reflective tool. Discussions surrounding the instrument seemed to be a vital component of the process of a teacher’s
142
self-awareness of his or her enactment of inquiry. For example, it was through comparison of her own scoring on the STIR instrument with that of the researcher that Rogue became aware that she had given her students the questions to investigate, rather than allowing her students to develop the questions. This process worked both directions, as the researcher also reconsidered how she had scored the rubric, and on several occasions the researcher’s initial score was shifted after a conversation with the teacher. Therefore, differing scores prompted both the teacher and the researcher to explain their reasoning for why they had arrived at the score they did, reciting the evidence. Thus, it was used as a tool for negotiating understanding of classroom enactment.
Interviews, Post Program Teachers were formally interviewed following data analysis. The overriding purpose of the interviews was for the researcher to share interpretations of the data, ask “why did you do this?”, and have the teacher either confirm the interpretation, disagree with it, or help the researcher to better flesh out or understand what the teacher had been thinking. A second purpose of the interview was to have the teacher complete a STIR rubric. The researcher had also completed a STIR rubric prior to the interview. Then the teacher and researcher went over their ratings, with the goal of negotiating a consensus (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). A final purpose of the interview was to review some of the critical incidents with the teacher and to use those conversations (as well as questions about what the teacher thought science was, and whether they did science, etc.) to try to gain a clearer understanding of the goals and underlying values of the teachers. What influenced their decisions? What were they primarily trying to achieve? Structured teacher interview questions: 11. What did you do when you taught your inquiry-based lesson? 12. Did you teach the lesson as originally planned during the MET program? What did you change? 13. What were your goals? What is the evidence that your goals were met? 14. Why did you teach it as you did? 15. What was different here than when you taught a part of it at the marine lab? Explain.
143
16. If nothing stood in your way, how would you teach this lesson in your classroom? How would you describe the MET program to someone who was not familiar with it? What would you say it was (i.e. a class, an in-service, a…? 17. What is teaching? 18. What is science? 19. Do you do science in your classroom? 20. Here is an incident where I think the student asked you a question you hadn’t anticipated. Is this the case? What were you thinking when you responded the way you did? Why did you decide to handle the situation that way?
Participant Observation The researcher spent the entire five weeks of the MET program with the twentyfour teachers who participated during the summer of 2004. Some of the time was spent with these four teachers; while helping various groups with data collection, giving them rides to collect materials in one of the vans, eating together, and watching research presentations, for instance. Therefore, all of the teachers in this study were well acquainted with the researcher prior to their decision to participate in the research project. These observations gave the researcher insight into the goals and values of each teacher, general thoughts and perhaps some inkling as to how the teachers might implement inquiry in their classrooms. Additionally, the researcher directly observed all four of the teachers as they taught their follow-up inquiry lesson in their classrooms. During this time, the researcher kept field notes regarding the decisions the teacher made throughout the class period, and emerging questions were recorded here as well.
Data Analysis
A number of data analysis techniques were employed. In this section, I clarify the nature of the analysis by providing examples of how I analyzed: 1) questionnaires in support of conceptions of inquiry; 2) transcripts in terms of question analysis; 3) the STIR instrument using an example; and 4) an interview transcript to illustrate analysis of a critical incident.
144
Support for Conceptions of Inquiry Several methodological challenges emerged during my quest for understanding the teachers’ conceptions of inquiry. [For a detailed description of these, see Blanchard, Muire, Davis, & Granger, in progress]. In this study, teachers, embedded in their practices, defined inquiry in very ‘practical’ ways. This required an analytical rubric that could accommodate these classroom behaviors. In surveying the literature, I discovered Gallagher and Parker’s (1995) Secondary Science Teacher Analysis Matrix (SSTAM). Their rubric originally was constructed to show a range of behaviors on the part of the teacher ranging from a didactic classroom to a constructivist classroom, and the authors listed open-ended inquiry in the most constructivist classroom column at the right of the table. It was this rubric that introduced us to the idea of categorizing the manner in which the teachers wrote about their classroom activities using the categories of “content”, “assessment,” “teacher actions,” and “student actions. These categories became the basis for the Teacher/Learner Inquiry Rubric (TLIC). Once the TLIC was constructed, I took the teachers’ pre program questionnaires and coded them line by line into categories, using the words the teacher had selected to guide us in how to determine where to code each statement. I took care to code the pre and post questionnaires separately from one another to keep from biasing my coding of data. Table 6.2 shows how I coded some of Nate’s questionnaire responses into the TLIC.
On his pre program survey, Nate wrote, Inquiry teaching is a paradigm which allows the teacher to become less the imparter of knowledge, and more of a guide for the investigations of students.
I coded this in the rubric category ‘Inquiry Metaphors and Definitions’ as Somewhat Teacher Centered, and wrote “teacher as guide” for shorthand in the inquiry metaphor/definition category of the Table 6.2. Nate wrote, Inquiry teaching builds on the natural curiosity of the student, providing a way for the teacher to use the curiosity as motivation for learning.
145
I coded this entry as two statements. The first half, “Inquiry teaching builds on the natural curiosity of the student” I coded as somewhat student centered in the category ‘Inquiry Metaphors & Definitions,’ and wrote “natural curiosity of student.” I coded the second half of the statement as a ‘Teacher’s Actions’, and wrote “Teacher uses curiosity as motivation for learning” in the somewhat teacher centered category for teacher actions.
Table 6.2. Sample of Nate’s Pre Program Questionnaire Responses, Teacher/Learner Inquiry Continuum. [LC=Learner Centered; TC=Teacher Centered] LC Inquiry Metaphors and Definitions
Somewhat LC Somewhat TC Prior knowledge, Teacher as guide interests and natural curiosity of student
Content Structure, Examples or interconnections Teacher’s Actions
Teacher uses curiosity as motivation for learning.
Assessment
Students’ Actions
TC
Exam review at the knowledge level. Focus students on recall content. Poses questions on knowledge questions, particular content. Asks questions for classroom management, Exams-based on recall of facts, given by teacher, structures, uniform, “covers” knowledge Review for a grade, answer teacher questions
Other Factor(s) mentioned by Teacher
Transcripts of Science Lessons, Pre/Post Questions were the focus of the analysis of the science lessons, and the coding of all questions was my window to describing their enactment of inquiry: who asked them? (teacher or student); were they related to content?; what was the cognitive level of the
146
question?; at what part of the lesson did they occur? All recordings of classroom activities were transcribed verbatim for analysis. Primarily, these recordings focused on the teachers’ comments to students and interactions between the teacher and the students. Only occasional student conversations were captured, and student side-talk was not the focus of this analysis. From the transcripts, all of the content questions from both the teacher and the student were coded using a revised Bloom’s taxonomy (Huitt, 2004). Additionally, all non-content questions were coded and classified. The number and taxonomic level of each conceptual question was determined and recorded on separate data sheets, one for the teacher and one for the student for each day of the lesson. To illustrate the coding of questions, refer to the sample of transcript for Day 1 of Michael’s inquiry-based lesson on bottle rockets (the coding is shown in brackets and bold): T: Give me one component of a rocket that we talked about. What are you thinking, Ms. Bell? One component. [Orienting] S: How you build it. T: Well, we are talking about specific components. I need a specific named component. S: Shape. (laughter from students) T: A shape? [Clarification] Ok. We could talk about overall shape. What are some things that make up the shape? What are some things that make up the shape of a rocket? [Comprehension (coded as one question)] S: Nose. T: The nose cone, right? [Clarification] S: The body. S: The fins. T: The body. The fins. Ok. Can we change the feel? [Comprehension] S: Yep. T: Is that something? The touch variable? [Comprehension (coded as one question)] What about metric…what is this thing? [Knowledge] S: Materials!! (in unison) T: Materials…
147
S: of construction T: Materials of construction. Is that something we can control? [Comprehension] S: Yeah. T: Ok. We can take that one. Ok. These are all good. Aerodynamics? [Clarification] That is a very interesting term. Aerodynamics…do you think that is more of a test or an outcome kind of thing? [Analysis] S: Outcome. S: Test. S: Some of both. T: How can it be a test variable? [Comprehension] S: It would be the outcome. T: Well, okay. Let’s just leave that for now.
Table 6.3. Tally of Bloom’s Taxonomy Analysis of Michael’s Teacher Question Data (Day 1) Level
Definition
Sample Verbs
Knowledge
Student recalls or recognizes information, ideas, and principles in the approximate form in which they were learned.
Comprehension
Student translates, comprehends, or interprets information based on prior learning.
Application
Student selects transfers, and uses data and principles to complete a problem or task with a minimum of direction.
Analysis
Student distinguishes, classifies, and relates the assumptions, hypotheses, evidence, or structure of a statement of question.
Write List Label Name State Define Explain Summarize Paraphrase Describe Illustrate Use Compute Solve Demonstrate Apply Construct Analyze Categorize Compare Contrast Separate
148
Tallies from Michael’s classroom I
IIIII
I
Table 6.3. Continued. Synthesis
Student originates, integrates, and combines ideas into a product, plan, or proposal that is new to him or her.
Create Design Hypothesize Invent Develop Evaluation Student appraises, assesses, or Judge critiques on a basis of specific Recommend standards and criteria Critique Justify • Synthesis and Evaluation are considered to be at the same level.
Following this coding, the participants’ coded questions were tabulated. (See Table 6.3 for an example of the tally for those questions on Day 1.) The student questions were coded onto a separate tally sheet. Note: There were no student questions in this section of the transcripts. Questions with no conceptual focus were categorized separately. After much reflection on the nature of the teacher and student questions within the context of the classroom, it was decided that procedural and rhetorical questions were potentially important indicators of the nature of how the classroom operated, and all of the other questions (orienting, clarification, repeat/read the question, other noncontent) had little to do with the nature of the instruction. Therefore, although I coded all of the question data, I only used the procedural and the rhetorical questions when I computed the total question numbers. What this did was reduce the number of teacher questions that were nonessential in understanding the nature of the classroom instruction. Table 6.4 shows a tally of these questions for the sample data I coded from Day1. Table 6.4. Tally of Noncontent Questions, Michael’s Teacher Question Data (Day 1) Rhetorical Procedural Prompting/Orienting Questions Repeat Question/Read Question Clarification Noncontent Questions
Posed by teacher posed and either answered himself or left unanswered. Related to materials, specifics of the assignment, etc Mostly referred to calling on students. Reading a lab question out loud or repeating a question, because it had not been heard or to let everyone hear it. Checking on directions or making sure something was understood correctly Personal talk that did not fall under one of the other categories
149
I
Here is a summary of the noncontent question categories: Rhetorical Questions: Questions that the teacher posed and either answered or left unanswered. After much analysis of the transcripts, I decided the rhetorical questions were determined to indicate the teacher being “in control.” While it seemed the teacher was asking a question, they actually were not, but were using it as a way to convey content. Procedural Questions: These are questions that related to materials, specifics of the assignment, etc. The data on the procedural questions appeared to flow according to the nature of stage of the inquiry, and therefore I thought it would be interesting to note if and how the switch occurred from the number of those questions by the teacher and the students, as a gauge of the role of the teacher and students at those stages of the lesson. Prompting/Orienting Questions: Primarily referred to calling on students. Repeat Question/Read Question: Did not refer to a real question, but one that was on a lab sheet or that a student/teacher did not hear the first time. Clarification: Mostly referred to making sure the teacher or student had heard directions or a response correctly. Noncontent Questions: Ranged from asking to use the restroom to talking about personal matters or homework assignments. Why Analyze Questions? There were several reasons underlying my selection of an analysis of questions. First, the MET program placed a heavy emphasis on questions (Granger & Herrnkind, 1999). The provocative phenomenon was intended to promote student questions, then students were to re-tool those questions into testable ones, and often the results of the
150
experiments actually raised new questions rather than necessarily answering the initial questions. Historically, a teacher has been called a “professional question maker,” as the use of questions is a basic way “the teacher stimulates student thinking and learning” (Aschner, as cited in Gall, 1970). Research has shown that teachers ask a lot of questions in the school day, often averaging from 65-180 per science lesson. Additionally, students are exposed to written questions from textbooks and on examinations (Gall, 1970). Questions are important in fostering comprehension of material, checking for understanding, and encouraging students to carry out higher levels of cognitive thinking (Rosenshine, Meiester, & Chapman, 1996). Teachers’ questions also convey their authority over the classroom, and questions are often used to force discourse into particular thought paths (Carlson, 1993, as cited in Yerrick, 2000; Lemke, 1990). Questions are also a way to transmit well-established knowledge about science, which relates both to teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science and their understanding of what it is to teach (Bartholomew, Osborne, and Ratcliffe, 2004). Teacher questions and the discourse patterns of which they are a part indicate many things, among which are teacher roles (i.e. “dispenser of knowledge”) and the related student role (i.e. “student as sponge or empty vessel”). Wellington (1981) described the students’ task in most traditional questioning sessions as “guess what’s in the teacher’s head” (as cited in Bartholomew et al., 2004). An example of this from Michael’s pre program lesson is when he said, “From previous experiments, we know that when air cools, it contracts. What we mean by that contraction is the air is doing what?” (Michael, Day 2, Pre program lesson). Bartholomew et al. (2004) a shift in classroom learning goals to ones that focus on reasoning and understanding as well as the acquisition of knowledge. Teachers’ questions would shift with this shift in classroom control, consistent with NSES goals of inquiry-based science teaching (NRC, 2000). AAAS and the NRC recommend the use of inquiry-based teaching as a way to shift the classroom control of teachers, thereby potentially increasing student reasoning (AAAS, 1993; NRC, 1996). Hofstein, Navon, Kipnis, and Mamlok-Naaman (2005) conducted research in high school chemistry classes, comparing differences between instruction that was inquiry-
151
based versus more traditionally taught. The central features they investigated were the number of questions asked by students, the cognitive levels of the questions, and the nature of the questions students asked. They grouped questions into the category “LowOrder” when the response could be found directly in the text and it could be answered with a single word, statement, or explanation. “High-Order” questions were ones that could only be answered with further investigation. In their analysis of the questions, they found that the inquiry group asked a far higher number of questions and a higher number of high-order questions. The authors attributed these results to the practice students had in forming questions in the inquiry sections, particularly higher level questions. The significance of using Bloom’s taxonomy is that it indirectly is intended as a measure of internal cognition. Research has shown that students remember more when they have learned to handle a topic at higher levels of questions, because more elaboration is required of them (Huitt, 2004). Therefore, a lesson that is coded at higher levels of the modified Bloom’s taxonomy would be an external measure of students demonstrating more learning. Carlsen found that if low-level teacher questions dominated the speaking time it tended to discourage students from asking questions. Conversely, student participation increased when teachers relinquished control and did not evaluate student responses (as cited in Roth, 1996), additional evidence that higher order questions are desirable. Therefore, I are making the assumption that if higher order questions dominate the lesson, rather than lower order (or primarily knowledge level) questions, then there is more student learning going on. Finally, teachers’ relinquishing control is consistent with NSES goals of inquirybased science teaching (NRC, 2000). Van Zee’s research (2000, 2001) showed that during low-level taxonomic discourse, teachers often asked questions to try to find out what a student knew rather than to develop any conceptual understanding. Therefore, assessing the taxonomic level and the number of both student and teacher questions are methods to externally ascertain the depth of the students’ understanding, and therefore, indirectly, the quality of the science lesson.
152
Table 6.5. Rogue’s Negotiated STIR Rubric [*Mark an X in the box that is most reflects the classroom teaching] (Adapted from Bodzin & Beerer, 2003). Learner Centered --------------------------------------------------------------------------Teacher centered Learners are engaged by scientifically oriented questions. (1)Teacher provides an [LC] Learner is [SLC] Teacher suggests [STC] Teacher [TC] Teacher provides E. No evidence opportunity to engage prompted to formulate topic areas or provides offers learners lists learners with specific observed for learners with a own questions or samples to help learners of questions or stated (or implied) scientifically oriented hypothesis to be tested. formulate own hypotheses from questions or hypotheses question. questions or hypothesis. which to select. to be investigated. X Learners give priority to evidence, which allows them to develop and evaluate explanations that address scientifically oriented questions. (2)Teacher engages Learners develop Teacher encourages Teacher provides Teacher provides the No evidence observed learners in planning procedures and learners to plan and guidelines for learners procedures and investigations to gather protocols to conduct a full to plan and conduct part protocols for the evidence in response to independently plan and investigation, providing of an investigation. students to conduct the questions. conduct a full support and scaffolding Some choices are made investigation. investigation. with making decisions. by the learners. X Teacher helps learners Learners determine Teacher directs learners Teacher provides data Teacher provides data No evidence observed give priority to evidence what constitutes to collect certain data or and asks learners to and gives specific which allows them to evidence and develop only provides portion f analyze. direction on how data is draw conclusions and/or procedures for needed data. Often to be analyzed. develop and evaluate gathering and analyzing provides protocols for explanations that relevant data (as data collection. address scientifically appropriate). oriented questions. X
153
Table 6.5. Continued. Learner Centered ----------------------------------------------------------------Teacher centered Learners formulate explanations and conclusions from evidence to address scientifically oriented questions. Learners evaluate their Learners are prompted Teacher prompts Teacher directs Teacher directs conclusions and/or to analyze evidence learners to think about learners’ attention learners’ attention explanations from (often in the form of how analyzed evidence (often through (often through evidence to address data) and formulate leads to questions) to specific questions) to specific scientifically oriented their own conclusions conclusions/explanation pieces of analyzed pieces of analyzed questions. /explanations. s, but does not cite evidence (often in the evidence (often in the specific evidence. form of data) to draw form of data) to lead conclusions and/or learners to formulate evidence. predetermined correct conclusions/explanation s (verification). X Learners evaluate the explanations in light of alternative explanations, particularly those reflecting scientific understanding. Learners evaluate their Teacher provides Teacher explicitly states Learner is prompted to Teacher does not conclusions and/or specific connections examine other resources resources to relevant provide resources to explanations in light of scientific knowledge and/or explanations, but and make connections relevant scientific alternative conclusions/ and/or explanations that may help identify does not provide knowledge to help explanations, alternative conclusions resources. independently. learners formulate particularly those and/or explanations. alternative conclusions reflecting scientific Teacher may or may not and/or explanations. understanding. direct learners to Instead, the teacher examine these identifies related resources, however. scientific knowledge that could lead to such alternatives, or suggests possible connections to such alternatives. Learners communicate and justify their proposed explanations Learners communicate Learners specify Teacher talks about how Teacher provides Teacher specifies and justify their content and layout to be to improve possible content to content and/or layout to proposed conclusions used to communicate communication, but include and/or layout be used. and/or explanations. and justify their does not suggest content that might be used. conclusions and or layout. explanations. X
154
No evidence observed
No evidence observed
X
No evidence observed
STIR Instrument, Post Program As explained earlier, the STIR instrument was both a measure of inquiry as it had been enacted in the classroom, and an instrument with which the teacher could reflect on her lesson through scoring her own teaching using the instrument, and then negotiating one shared version between the researcher and the teacher. Table 6.5 shows the STIR instrument as it was negotiated between Rogue and the researcher. They were in agreement on all items in the instrument except for item #5. Originally, Rogue had it marked as C and the researcher had marked it as D. Upon discussion, both parties agreed that the lesson had not been connected back to the scientific literature on light, and they marked it as an E (no evidence observed).
Critical Incidents Analyses, Pre/Post Program In my early reading of the classroom transcripts, I noticed that teachers’ responses to students were more interesting when the student asked a question or made a comment that had not been expected by the teacher, a question or situation the teacher had not previously pondered. After careful consideration, I realized that the teachers were “pinch hitting’ in these situations, responding in ways that were perhaps closer to internal values, given that they had not had the time to really think about what to do. After consulting with the literature (Crawford, 2000; Johnston & Southerland, in review; Nott & Wellington, 1995) I decided to call these ‘critical incidents.’ Teaching transcripts from the pre and post program lessons were analyzed by 1) finding a section in which the teacher seemed surprised by a question, 2) reading the section and trying to figure out the underlying reasons the teacher had responded in the way she did in terms of her teaching values/goals, and 3) conducting a member check with the teacher during the follow-up interview by looking at the incident and verifying that the teacher had been surprised by the question and asking the teacher why she had responded as she did, then negotiating out with the teacher an appropriate interpretation for what had happened (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). There were varying numbers of critical incidents in the teachers’ classrooms. The numbers were higher when teachers were trying something very different from what they had ever done before.
155
The following is a critical incident that was coded from Kaitlin’s Day 2 of her post program inquiry lesson on soil absorption. The students were in laboratory groups and were trying to decide how to set up an experiment that would measure how much water three different soils absorb. T- If you’re going to take an eyedropper and just drop water on the soil, how are you going to determine how much absorbs the most water? S- ‘Cause um, put a certain amount of soil in, and you can feel it and then…[unexpected student suggestion] T- How does that tell me how much, just by your feeling it? Is that objective? S- Like which one is more…moist, T- How can you feel that? S- One’s thicker than the other T- That’s not going to give you any quantitative data on how much. The question is how much water will be absorbed, that’s your question right? So how are you going to determine how much? By feeling it can you give me some quantitative data or tell me how much just by doing that? S- Give each soil a certain amount of water and keep pouring it in until it absorbs… T- But how are you going to tell me how much? How are you going to tell me that this one absorbs this amount, this one absorbs this amount and this one absorbs this amount, how are you going to do that? S- We could measure how many drops of water we’re putting in there [Kaitlin is surprised at the students wanting to use a dropper] T- Why are we stuck on drops? S- ‘Cause, that’s [can’t hear] T- Why drops? S- What, you wanna put a gallon in? T- You don’t have to put a gallon in. I didn’t say that this was your sample S- Oh. We was going off of this. T- No I didn’t say that was your sample, I said to devise a plan on how you would test three soils to determine how much water each one would absorb.
156
[Kaitlin is surprised that the student thought the small sample of soil students used to observe the soil was the actual amount they would experiment with.] S-[Can’t hear] T-I’ll let you think about it. In this critical incident, Kaitlin was surprised by the student’s suggestion to measure the moisture content of the soils by feel, and she responded by going back to issues that she thinks are important in science, such as objectivity, obtaining quantitative data, and wanting students to develop experimental designs that will work. Kaitlin wanted students to make the ‘right’ choices, yet didn’t want to tell them directly what to do. Kaitlin image of how students would likely set up their experiments, but her students were not planning the investigation Kaitlin had envisioned. In the interview, when we discussed her response to the students, Kaitlin acknowledged her desire for students to go somewhere “useful”, and when it was suggested she was “careful and intentional” she commented “some people might call it controlling.” But the new understanding that emerged from the conversation for us was that because Kaitlin doesn’t allow students to make contributions that are “goofy,” she holds them accountable for what they contribute. That is, she means that she wants her students to stop and think. Promoting student thinking is an important underlying goal of hers.
Findings
In the following sections I will examine and analyze data for the teachers in this study. Although four teachers were studied, I describe in detail only two of the teachers, and then show data for the other two teachers in table format. The following sections on Kaitlin and Rogue include the teacher’s background, the context of the school and classroom, and the individual data supporting the teacher’s conceptions and enactment of data. I conclude each of the sections with a discussion of how the findings illuminate the teachers’ values and goals, finally summarizing the changes for each teacher. I then present my cross case analysis, focusing on factors that influenced what each of the teachers learned from the MET experience.
157
Rogue I want [my students] to talk. I want them to share their ideas because sometimes they will…see the connection or make a connection…I think that’s good. I love them to see patterns and connect them. That’s my whole goal, to get the students to think about what they know and connect it to what we are doing and put it all together and tie it all up and construct this web for themselves so they can catch more concepts. That’s what they’re doing. They’re constructing this web that is their knowledge and I want them to make as many weaves or connection to everything else they can because the tighter the weave, the more they catch. If they have this big gap then stuff goes right through.
Teacher Background Rogue was a middle school teacher in her 11th year of teaching. She has a B. S. in secondary science education and is certified in 6-12 Biology, Chemistry, and integrated science for the middle grades. She taught in a new school located in a rural county of northern Florida. During her first two years following graduation she taught students with varying exceptionalities, afterwards moving to ‘regular’ 7th grade math, reading and three science sections. At one point, disappointed about the lack of support and feeling unenthusiastic about the materials in her classroom, Rogue considered leaving teaching. Then she hit upon a set of laboratory kits that energized her and enabled her to do more interesting things with her students. At the time of this study, she taught five periods each day: advanced 7th grade mathematics, a regular 7th grade mathematics, a reading, and two physical science classes. In the year of this research she submitted her materials for national board certification in middle grades science. Rogue was a petite woman, with long, dark wavy hair and large green eyes. She spoke with candor about her life and her students, consistently exuding confidence in all situations, with a self-described “kooky” sense of humor. For instance, when the researcher mentioned that she was wondering was about Rogue’s age, she quickly provided her age (34) and quipped, “Getting older is better than the alternative, right…being dead?” Rouge was consistently candid, self-deprecating, and humorous during the research. For instance, after teaching Day 1 of the inquiry light and color
158
wheel lesson, Rogue immediately walked up to the first author and asked, “So, was that too bad?” She explained that she doesn’t like to do activities, and that “it’s partially a control issue.” Rough described herself as “anal”, and in return the first author jokingly suggested O.C.D. (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder). In response, Rouge nodded her head and observed, “Do you see how I had to put all the materials in these tubs? Look in that room [points to open storeroom]. Every activity that I teach has a tub, and all the materials are in the tub. If it isn’t there, because it’s a general activity that I use for all my other activities, then I put a star on it.” Another reason she gave for not enjoying student activities is the issue of “covering content.”
School and Classroom Context At the time of the research, the school still “felt” new, light and bright with wide hallways and no students loitering anywhere. The teachers’ lunch conversation on the first day of observations centered on a writing contest that several of them had helped to judge. The winning student was to receive $1,000, and the teachers took their judging tasks very seriously. Rogue’s school was rated an “A” in Florida. In the time I spent in her room, students asked about test grades and I had the sense that grades were important to her students. Rogue never mentioned the statewide standardized science assessment, and she was willing to schedule her teaching time for a different research prior to the school-wide preparation for this assessment [FCAT]. A handwritten sign on the outside of Rogue’s classroom door read “No bookbags, no gum, or you will get a referral.” On the inside of the door was a poster of a black bear cub trying to climb a tree, and a poster with Eleanor Roosevelt’s quote, “You must do the thing you THINK you cannot do.” The classroom was a large rectangle, with approximately 75% of the room being carpeted. This carpeted section housed student desks, arranged in pairs. There were two long black lab tables, with electrical under each section and lots of space for sliding in papers or other supplies. The lab section had linoleum flooring, and a long white board along the wall. Although the room was filled with posters, desks, and lab materials, it had a clean, orderly look. The observation began with Rogue having her students write five copies of the preamble to the United States Constitution-- a punishment for poor behavior the previous
159
day, a strategy both she and her team teacher used. They also employed corporal punishment at the school and in her classroom. She described her “team” at school as having high expectations that were juxtaposed by a close emotional attachment on the part of the students. Indeed, she described that her students like her and want to please her.
Rogue’s Pre Data Motivation Rouge explained that she entered the MET program as she was “trying to move my classroom toward an inquiry-based curriculum” and the monetary support provided by the program was helpful in allowing her to devote five weeks to this effort.
Pre Program Lesson Rogues’ pre program lesson was conducted with a small group of students during their team time. In the lesson, Rogue conducted a short review of physical properties of matter. For this, students followed a set of directions to work through a series of chemical or physical changes: breaking a pencil, passing a ball through rings, cutting clay and molding it, dissolving sugar cubes in water, mixing baking soda and vinegar, and lighting a candle [Stage 1, 2, 3]. Then, the whole group discussed the changes, categorizing them as physical or chemical [Stage 5]. The lesson lasted approximately 45 min.
Pre Program Conceptions of Inquiry In the pre program questionnaire, Rogue wrote about students “perform[ing] a certain task,” and having them “come up with a definition” for and “understand the properties of different substances.” One of Rogue’s pre program statements was,
I facilitate the inquiry by leading the discussion, asking questions to help the students organize the data in appropriate ways and by the demonstrations I gave they were able to perform the task assigned.
160
Table 6.6 demonstrates that Rogue has no focus on assessment in her pre program descriptions of inquiry. Instead the bulk of her entry on inquiry related to content and what the students were actually doing. Her primary focus was expressed in terms of students internalizing the content in the book, or in this case, the kit, by carrying out preset steps. She was the one who orchestrated this learning of the science canon, and led students to “organizing data in appropriate ways,” while her “demonstrations and directions” enabled them to carry out the assigned tasks. Rogue’s writing about inquiry at this point portrayed her in the center of the inquiry experience, orchestrating students’ completion of tasks in order to understand “patterns and generalize” about scientific knowledge. Table 6.6. Support for Rogue’s Pre Program Conceptions Rogue Pre Program Inquiry Content Teacher Actions Assessment Student Actions Other Totals Percentage of total
LC Pre 0 0
Somewhat LC Pre 2 3
Somewhat TC Pre 1 3
TC Pre 0 0
0 0
1 0
2 0
0 0
2 0 2
4 0 11
2 0 8
0 0 0
10%
52%
38%
0%
Pre Program Enactment of Inquiry As reflected in the top section of Table 6.7, in the pre program lesson, Rogue’s questions dominated the instruction (97%), and the vast majority of questions were either recall or explanatory questions (90% lower level questions). Additionally, Rogue asked ten rhetorical questions, further demonstrating that her questions to students were driving the lesson. The highest cognitive level questions were two analysis questions asked by the teacher. Students asked but three questions, one of which was content-based, coded at the knowledge (recall) level. Therefore, the focus of the lesson was on recall of previously learned facts about physical and chemical changes, and students’ explanations of their understandings of these items. Additionally, the students responded to pre-set
161
questions as they worked through the directions. There was no presentation stage of findings, which were simply discussed after each step was done.
Table 6.7. Rogue Pre and Post Program Question Analysis by Day [T = Teacher, S = Student]. Type of Question Conceptual
Procedural Rhetorical
Speaker Raw Q Data Type of Question Conceptual
Procedural Rhetorical
Speaker Raw Q Data
% Lower % Higher % content % of total % of total % Noncontent % of Qs Total # Stage
% Lower % Higher % content % of total % of total % Noncontent % of Questions asked Total # Stage
T-PRE 90 10 70 2 11
S-PRE 100 0 14 67 0
30 97 90 1,2,4,5 T-DAY 1 81 19 45 17 3
86 3 3 1,2,4,5 S-DAY 1 62 38 33 41 0
T-DAY 2 97 3 54 22 0
S-DAY 2 100% 0 9 86 0
T-DAY 3 84 16 66 8 1
S-DAY 3 58 42 75 8 0
55
67
46
91
34
25
73 60 1,2,3
27 22 1,2,3
85 41 4
15 7 4
88 98 5,6
12 13 5,6
Summary of Rogue’s Pre Program Data Rogue was very interested in helping her students to learn science content. Even though her preprogram activity was a lesson that has many of the “essential features” of inquiry (Olson & Loucks-Horsely, 2000), I would classify it into what Schwab calls Level 1 and Colburn would call “guided inquiry,” since “the teacher provides the students with the question to be investigated and the methods of gathering data. What they will find during the activity is not immediately obvious to the students, but the teacher is there to guide them toward an expected conclusion” (Settlage & Southerland, in review, p. 9). Rogue was deeply invested in student learning of subject matter and was eager to develop
162
her expertise in this regard, but she believed that she had to be the one to tell them where to go and helping them to arrive there. When Rogue examined the raw data table of her coded statements, she commented, “It’s kind of heavier on the teacher side…It’s kind of the same as your observations, really…With the population I am dealing with, that’s kind of par for the course.” ‘Doing inquiry’ at this point was a very teacher-directed laboratory experience, in which students “discovered” known concepts through interaction with materials.
Rogue’s Post Data Post Program Lesson Rogue’s post program lesson focused on light and light absorption by various colors. •Day 1: Students began by looking at light through a prism, reviewing what they knew about light and the light spectrum, and making observations. She showed them a color wheel and they made observations as she spun it. She told them to make a color wheel using the colors they wanted to, then to spin them and record data on what colors they had and what they saw when they spun it. [Stage 1,2,3] •Day 2: Students worked on color wheels as Rogue walked around and talked to them about their progress and observations. [Stage 4] •Day 3: Students completed their work on the color wheels, discussed their findings, posted ‘favorite’ color wheels and linked their observations back to the differences between how colors behave and how colors of light behave. They follow this by discussion what experiment could be conducted. Table 6.8 (below) displays the summaries from Rogue’s post program conceptions. [Stage 5,6]
Post Program Conceptions of Inquiry In the post program questionnaire, Rogue’s focus had visibly shifted to writing more in terms of what the students were doing, with a full 90% of her statements coding on the student-centered half of the rubric. Here is a sample from the questionnaire of how she is now writing about goals for her students with inquiry:
163
By determining the colors they will use on the color wheel, the students are empowered to seek their own answers and are more interested in the outcomes. When they observe the outcomes and participate in the discussion about them they are more likely to remember the concept. By creating experiences using touch, kinesthetic, visual and auditory senses, the students have a greater opportunity to integrate this new information into their existing scheme.
Table 6.8. Support for Rogue’s Post Program Conceptions Rogue Post Program Inquiry Content Teacher Actions Assessment Student Actions Other Totals Percentage of total
LC Post 2 3 0 0 7 0 12 57%
Somewhat LC Post 1 2 4 0 0 0 7 33%
Somewhat TC Post 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 10%
TC Post 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
LC = Learner Centered, SLC= Somewhat Learner Centered, STC= Somewhat Teacher Centered, TC= Teacher Centered. By the end of the program, Rogue has no focus on assessment, and instead is writing about what the teacher is doing and what the students are doing. Teachers’ actions were framed in supportive terminology, such as to “help the students internalize this concept” and “guide them to investigate further the question of how to make white light.” Rogue used language from the MET program: the class observed a “provocative event,” students were “empowered,” the students were doing “fieldwork.” She wrote about students “internalizing this concept” and her goal was “to help insure that the students’ understanding of light is not merely a surface one.” The focus, overall, was one of the students experiencing and internalizing inquiry, and she seemed to have a more peripheral role, one of guiding and supporting their meaning making. She wrote that students “went through the process of reasoning out what they were seeing when they discussed it among themselves.” This is a personalized version of knowing that Rogue described about her students. She concluded her description of inquiry by expressing a
164
desire to allow more time for individual experimentation the next time she does this activity with her students.
Post Program Enactment of Inquiry As shown in the second section of Table 8, in the post program lesson, the question interaction was again teacher dominated (73%, 85%, 88%). On Day 1, when students were generating questions from observations, there were a higher percentage of Higher Order questions both by the teacher (19%), “Can anyone think of another way of testing it,” and by the students (38%) “What if you shined it one the end?” This was also the case on Day 3, when 16% of the teacher’s questions were Higher Order, and 42% of the students’ were. Even a few analysis questions were asked by Rogue on Day 3, when the students were explaining their findings and the class was discussing the results as a whole. One such example is when Rogue prompted them, “So, the light hasn’t changed, so what must be changing?” In terms of noncontent questions, the number of procedural questions peaked on Day 2 when the students were carrying out their experiments (86%, or 6 out of their 7 questions to the teacher), spinning the color wheels and recording data on what they saw. Rogue also asked quite a few procedural questions all three days (10, 9, and 8, respectively). This indicated a shift in Rogue’s role from the dispenser of information to more of a lab support role, helping students with finding or manipulating materials.
STIR Analysis Table 6.9. Rogue’s STIR Table Results. LC 1.Question 2.Planning 3.Data Collection 4.Analysis 5.Connection to Science 6.Presentation
SLC X X
STC
TC
No Evidence
X X X X
Earlier, Table 6.5 showed the actual STIR table, and Rogue’s results. In Table 6.9 (above), I have displayed these data into a simpler chart. As you can see, students in 165
Rogue’s classes were working quite independently in terms of collecting data and trying to determine what they have found out. But students were provided the actual investigative question and given fairly explicit instructions on how to create the color wheels. The students selected which colors and in what order, etc., but still they all had the same basic design. Rogue made no explicit connection to how the color wheels and what the students learned fit into alternative scientific explanations. Perhaps the most interesting thing that happened during the negotiation with Rogue was she realized that her students had not actually generated the question that they had tested. Although the students had generated questions from their observations when she used a light prism on the wall of the room, and when they watched Rogue twirling a color wheel, they all investigated the pre-set question, “What happens if you combine different colors of light?”
Critical Incidents Analysis The analyses of the critical incidents suggest that there was a consistent pattern seen in Rogue’s post lesson inquiry teaching. She consistently turned student questions, comments, and explanations back to her students to think about. Even when a student’s response did not appear to make sense (such as adjusting the wattage on a camera), Rogue struggled to accept the response on some level in order to build the student’s confidence, show them she “believes in them” and that she wouldn’t give up on trying to help them to understand, as shown in the following critical incident: S: If you change the light bulb, can you change the amount of light it gives off? T: What do you guys think? S: No. S: It is the size of the filament inside of the light bulb. T: Oh. You think it is the filament inside of the light bulb. S: It’s the watts. T: How many watts it’s has. How could you find something like that out? S: On the label. S: On the computer. T: What does it say on the label?
166
S: The amount of watts. T: But how could you tell what is really making it brighter? S: An experiment. T: An experiment. How would you set it up? S: Use like a camera on the light and find out what the wattage is for different lights and turn the dial up. T: Ok. That would be a good one. Can anyone think of another way of testing it? S: Get a huge light bulb and a little light bulb and increase the same amount and see whichever one blew first. T: See whichever one blew first? Yeah? When asked about this incident in the follow-up interview, Rogue explained she thought that the student had meant a dimmer instead of a camera, so she accepted the response and explained it was viable “because [the students] were talking about changing the wattage and looking at the light and seeing what happens.” While Rogue is accepting student responses, she is also leading them to where she wants them to go: to consider using an experiment to try to answer their question.
Future Goals for Inquiry The last question to the post program questionnaire asked teachers what they would do differently with the questionnaire in the future. Rogue wrote,
In the future I will make the initial fieldwork portion of the lesson shorter by requiring each student to do only one color wheel before we start generating questions. This will leave more time for individual experimentation and presentation, which had to be cut short because of lack of time.
When asked if she did science in her classroom, Rogue said, “I try to get them to understand…what science is and I do baby steps towards it.” After talking about how to make the inquiry lesson more student centered, Rogue decided that having a set of 30 flashlights and individual acrylic color circles would allow the students to do their own
167
experimentation, would take her out of the center. But she admitted, “If I don’t get it together now, ahead of time, I’m not going to do it.”
Rogue’s Teaching Values and Goals When asked if ideally she would like to get more student centered she said, “Yeah. I want that. I’ve not been able to figure out how to do it and maybe it’s not the curriculum, maybe it’s just me. I don’t know.” She then explained her struggles over the last years to have science be more interactive for her students, and her struggle to manage the students’ excitement and their learning. In many cases, the relative difficulty of the activity versus its instructional usefulness drove Rogue to conduct a demonstration, thus preventing students from completing the activity themselves. Rogue valued order, and being in control, and teaching students ‘correct’ science content, values that align with the ‘authoritative” level of Beck and Cowan’s (1996) framework. She also valued honoring student contributions and promoting their thinking, a value that aligns with the “communal’ level of Beck and Cowan’s model. Rogue shared her hypothesis that students at the 7th grade level have hormones that are “jamming their wiring.” When asked what would happen if she just let the students do the investigations instead of her demonstrating them, Rogue said, “They would have data they wouldn’t be able to make conclusions of, at least not the right conclusions…They are going to remember the experience and get it wrong every time.” She struggled with these contradictions, particularly in light of the RET experience which promoted a more student centered focus. One example of these contradictions was when we talked about her lack of focus on assessment (evident in her pre and post program questionnaires) and she said, "I hate assessment. Can't stand it. The only reason I do it is because otherwise they [the students] would never learn the definitions." Yet she then told me that test scores made up 40% of the students’ grades because and quiz grades made up 10%.
What am I going to do? I don’t feel that I am able to align the inquiry experience and the assessment. You don’t always have the time to let them prepare PowerPoint presentations or other forms of exhibits to demonstrate their knowledge. Time is the issue.
168
Summary of Conceptions and Enactment Changes Post program, Rogue’s writing frames students at the forefront and the teacher has receded into more of a guiding role. Rogue also had adopted some of the terminology from the program, which focused on student empowerment and the generation of questions from ‘provocative events.’ In comparing pre and post TLIC rubrics, there is a visible shift in the evidence of Rogue’s conceptions toward more student-centered, with matching language that describes concern for students’ learning and sense making, and an expressed desire to allow more time for students to experiment further in the future. Through the program language, it is clear that the changes are linked to her experiences with the MET program. In terms of enactment, Rogue’s questions still dominate, but less so than pre program. In analyzing these data and in the follow-up conversations with Rogue, it is clear that she is thinking about this issue of student centeredness and mulling over the changes that would be required to act in ways that would shift her classroom further along the continuum toward the more open-ended instruction of inquiry-based science. On the other hand, it is not clear that Rogue is detecting clear distinctions between what she did in the pre program lesson and the post program lesson. When interviewed, she commented that both lessons were “pretty much inquiry.” Rogue sees the main problems as relating to contextual factors: having materials, planning ahead, and the level of her students both cognitively and in terms of behavior.
Kaitlin When I first heard about [inquiry] it was years ago and it was the new thing and people around me were doing it…. I remember thinking that it was a ridiculous notion for me, because of the way it was described… the teachers just kind of “turned students loose” in the classroom and [the students] were just supposed to discover these things on their own with no leadership [from the teacher] based on the knowledge and experiences that [the students] already had. It was basically about tossing the book out the door and you let the kids go for it. They were supposed to learn concepts and things like that on their own. …. It wasn’t until [Science Teaching and Learning] class where I saw the continuum [of inquiry]
169
and got a better idea of it, that there is a continuum in there where you can work based on how you feel your students can handle, and progress and so on and so forth. It then made more sense to me.
Teacher Background Kaitlin was a petite, immaculately groomed African-American woman in her 40’s. At the time of this study, she was in her 10th year of teaching. Kaitlin held a BS in biology, and her teaching certifications were in Biology (9-12) and Middle Grades Science. A 2004 Teacher of the Year plaque from Howard Middle School leans on the windowsill behind her desk. She came to this teaching position (and the capital city) in an attempt to access further professional development in order to refine her practice. At the time of this study, Kaitlin taught honors integrated science and biology, and in the year of this research she was involved in a MS program in science education. Kaitlin’s manner was consistently calm and thoughtful. She was masterful at posing questions and patiently waiting for students to keep explaining themselves, beyond initial ideas. Questions allowed Kaitlin to understand the depth of their understanding, as well as identify what conceptual issues students were struggling with. While I describe Kaitlin as a careful and intentional teacher, she tended to view herself as “controlling”. Her numerous reminders to her students were offered quietly, but were also quite definite, “Look in the folder for your papers that don’t have names on them. They will be thrown out at the end of the day.” She gave comments only once, speaking clearly, quietly, and concisely. It was interesting to note that although Kaitlin consistently honored students’ comments and required students to listen respectfully as other students spoke, she rarely used praise to support student participation. Instead, she expected their continual participation and reserved praise for unusual or particularly insightful contributions. Kaitlin’s quiet manner had a reserve and formality that one might briefly mistake as stern or as an attempt to distance herself from her students. However, this momentary impression was quickly dispelled by talking with her and watching her interact with her or watching her with her students. Kaitlin clearly took great pleasure in interacting with
170
her students, and they clearly respect and trust her. It was not unusual for her to let giggles escape in response to her students’ comments.
School and Classroom Context Kaitlin taught at a school that was over 50 years old and that served primarily African-American students. Approximately 75% of students in this school were African American, 3% Asian American, and 20 % European American, with 45% being on free or reduced lunch. Given the age of the school it was not surprising that the general appearance of the campus was dated. Too, numerous signs posted around school grounds served to remind us that school work was not the only things on students’ minds. One sign read “Be Brave. School Safety Hotline 1-877--------. Call toll free and remain anonymous.” Another, smaller sign says “All visitors must report to student affairs.” Other signs say “P.A.R.T.Y. Time!” (This refers to a state reading program the high school participated in as a means to raise students’ standardized test scores—a goal that was an ever present force in almost all conversations with teachers and administrators.) Outside of Kaitlin’s room was a sign posted, “Ms. Rippert is Reading Who Moved My Cheese.” Walking into Kaitlin’s classroom was a stark contrast to the school’s outdated and worn exterior. Her room was large and newly remodeled, seeming neat and spacious. The large room housed 30 desks arranged into rows with ample room for black lab tables along the sides of the room. Along the back wall was a large white broad, containing lists of the assignments expected in each student’s notebooks. The lab table arrangement allowed Kaitlin to set up lab materials at the tables ahead of the time they were needed, yet keep them out off the way while students were at their desks. A typical class began with students seating themselves and looking to an overhead projection of the day’s journal question. Kaitlin quietly but firmly reminded those students who have begun to talk during this 5 minute warm-up that they are to get started.
Kaitlin’s Pre Data Motivation
171
Kaitlin’s primary motivation to participate in the MET program was to earn graduate credit hours toward her master’s degree in science education, which seemed like a very efficient way to earn credit hours. She wrote, “You can’t beat 6 hours in 5 weeks.” She also wanted to refresh her “knowledge of research techniques as it relates to the nature of science and to learn about marine ecology.” And she acknowledged that the stipend was nice, as well.
Pre Program Lesson Kaitlin’s pre program lesson was an investigation of a cracked egg, for students to look at the structure and to predict the functions of the different parts [Stages 1, 2, 3]. After the students had worked with a partner examining the eggs and trying to predict the function of the structures, Kaitlin had them share their ideas with the class. One of Kaitlin’s goals was to “debunk the belief that students have about fertilized eggs versus unfertilized eggs in the supermarket.” She thought the class discussion would allow “the teacher to detect misconceptions or misinformation.” She also really wanted the students to “dialogue among lab group members and to listen and share ideas” with the dual hope that it would both “allow the students to take more responsibility for their learning” and enable her, the teacher, to know what ideas needed to be addressed in the class discussion with regard to “[im]plausible” beliefs.
Pre Program Conceptions of Inquiry By looking at Table 6.10, we can see that over half of Kaitlin’s pre program responses are framed in terms of what the teacher is doing, primarily in the sense of a diagnostician who tried to determine if the students are thinking in plausible ways about the eggs. Her focus is on what the teacher and the student are doing, with regard to the content that is covered and understood. She does not write about assessment at all, and she uses terminology that she learned in her recent graduate course referring to a conceptual change model, and, in her motivation, Nature of Science.
172
Table 6.10. Support for Kaitlin’s Pre Program Conceptions Kaitlin Pre Program Inquiry Content Teacher Actions Assessment Stud Actions Other Totals Percent
1 0
Somewhat LC Pre 0 1
0 0
0 0
2 0
2 0
2 0 3 23%
2 0 3 23%
2 0 7 47%
0 0 2 15%
LC Pre
Somewhat TC TC Pre Pre 2 1
0 0
Pre Program Enactment of Inquiry Enactment of inquiry is reflected in the top section of Table 6.11. In the pre program lesson, Kaitlin’s questions dominate the lesson, but students ask about onefourth (24%) of the questions, with 5 questions coded at the comprehension level and 2 questions coded at the application level, for a total of 98% lower order questions. Most of Kaitlin’s questions are explanatory, with 36 questions coded at the level of comprehension. Therefore, the focus of the lesson is in explaining, with the teacher asking for explanations and the students providing their reasoning. The lesson lasts for one class period and involves Stages 1, 2, and 3 of the MET model, but not the last three stages. When I asked Kaitlin about the selection of this activity for her pre program lesson, she said that she had been in a class which discussed using inquiry-based methods, and that she “hadn’t really been teaching that way” so she was “beginning to try those things out. They [the students] weren’t really used to me asking them so many questions. So, this was new to them as well.” She explained that in the past, she would have done the activity differently, “like crack the egg open, here’s a diagram, identify all of these parts. This is the yolk. It would have been more like that than tell me what you see and what it is.” She explained that she was “slowly easing into” new things that she learned in class and that she would “try stuff out on” her students.
173
Table 6.11. Kaitlin’s Pre and Post Program Question Analysis by Day [T = Teacher, S = Student]. Kaitlin Type of Question Conceptual
Procedural Rhetorical
Speaker Raw Q Data
Type of Question Conceptual
Procedural Rhetorical
Speaker Raw Q Data
% Lower % Higher % content % of total % of total % Noncontent % of Qs Total # Stage
% Lower % Higher % content % of total % of total % Noncontent % of Qs Total # Stage
T-PRE 98 2 61 4 0
S-PRE 87 13 79 17 0
4 76 91 1,2,3
17 24 22
T-DAY 1 96 4 54 3 7
S-DAY 1 77 23 54 35 0
T-DAY 2 49 51 71 9 4
S-DAY 2 36 64 55 21 0
T-DAY 3 95 5 59 31 0
S-DAY 3 100 0 29 71 0
T-DAY 4 52 48 54 16 0
S-DAY 4 100 0 38 44 0
10 59 51 1,2,3
35 41 31 1,2,3
13 86 115 4
21 14 23 4
31 70 47 4
71 30 24 4
16 74 43 5,6
44 26 17 5,6
Summary of Kaitlin’s Pre Program Data Kaitlin’s pre program activity modeled some of the observational aspects of an inquiry-based lesson. It was a very different type of lesson than what had been typical of Kaitlin’s lessons in the past in the sense that it was exploratory and she tried very hard not to answer their question, but to have them work through the conversations with students in their groups. Kaitlin was not overly comfortable with the activity, and was surprised by many of the comments and questions students asked, due to the fact that she had never done this lesson before. When we discussed it in the follow-up interview she explained, This was my stab at inquiry based on the theoretical stuff we had done in class; my kind of interpretation of hadn’t been able to really do anything, particularly like that. I didn’t have a model, someone I had seen do this before, but just based
174
on the theories we had done, this is what I had thought this might look like…This is me trying to get my legs.
This lesson was essentially an introduction to inquiry, without an experimental design, data collection, or a presentation. The focus is on content and students’ explaining their thinking to the teacher.
Kaitlin’s Post Data Post Program Lesson Kaitlin’s post program lesson was on soils. Students began by looking at the different soil types in their groups. In her instructions, Kaitlin said, “We are using our senses to gather information. Today I want you to do exactly that…We are going to go back and look at some nature of science things we’ve been doing and some set-ups…” The focus of the lesson was to see how the different soils absorbed water. Here is an overview of the four days of the lesson: • Day 1: Students begin by looking at soils, writing down observations about color, texture, and overall appearance. Then Kaitlin called for the students’ observations and wrote them on the board, after modifying them some from the original format. Statements were modified in questions, and then students were asked to go home and think about how the soils behaved in the presence of water. • Day 2: Students talked about situations in which students had experienced soils and water, and generated questions they could potentially test. Then, students worked on their experimental designs for testing soil behaving with water. • Day 3: Students tested their soils. • Day 4: Students finished data collection, made posters for presenting their findings, and gave a short presentation to the class on what they learned.
Post Program Conceptions of Inquiry In the post program questionnaire, Kaitlin’s entries are coded more toward the student centered half of the TLIC rubric (totaling 81%). There is a noteworthy focus on students’ actions, coded from statements such as “the experimental design and data 175
analysis are constructed by the student” and “The students are actively participating in their learning, they must think or ponder their observations, and they use the skills of science i.e. observations, inferences, etc.” In our interview, Kaitlin stated, “inquiry…is really about the power shift.” In response to one of the questions, Kaitlin states she finds inquiry appropriate for her goal to have “students see the connection…between what we learn in science and the real world application of soil properties in building homes, and other facilities.” When interviewed, Kaitlin expressed a strong desire for students to make sense of what they learned in her class through their experiences. She also believes that students know much more than they express, and she envisions her role as being he person to get students to dig into their brains and pull out what they already know. It is interesting to note that Kaitlin’s final response on the questionnaire concerns itself with students making their investigative question more concise. Inquiry is being conceptualized as a careful, concise process of devising experiments and carrying them out using science process skills. There is an underlying sense that the students are ringing background knowledge to the table that is worthwhile and necessary in order to complete the work and to gain an understanding of what was learned. What came out in the interview about Kaitlin’s conceptions that is not clear through the questionnaires is that inquiry, and learning in general, is a way for students to empower themselves and improve their lives.
Table 6.12. Support for Kaitlin’s Post Program Conceptions Kaitlin Post Program Inquiry Content Teacher Actions Assessment Stud Actions Other Totals Percent
1 1
Somewhat LC Post 0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
8 0 10 63%
3 0 3 19%
2 0 4 25%
0 0 0 0%
LC Post
Somewhat TC TC Post Post 1 1
0 0
176
Post Program Enactment of Inquiry If you look back to Table 6.11, you can see data on post program enactment. During the inquiry-based lesson, students were pretty self-sufficient when they observed the soils. You can see that the teacher asked students a very low percentage of questions on Day 1 (59%) compared to other days (86%, 70%, and 74%). The students were confident during this portion of the investigation, which perhaps matched other observational experiences they had had in Kaitlin’s class. Therefore, teacher control was lowest on the day that the students were making observations. But when the students began to work on designing the experiment, they seemed to need a lot of support. The way that Kaitlin provided it was through asking students questions to try to guide them to making the appropriate choices. Kaitlin’s idea of appropriate was labs that would work. She did not want students to head down the wrong path, experimenting in ways that were unproductive. Earlier in the paper I discussed a critical incident in which Kaitlin tried to steer students to a quantitative method of measuring soil content, other than using students’ feel. The days with the highest percentage of Higher Order questions were Day 2 and Day 4. On Day 2, when the students were trying to figure out how to set up the experiments and the teacher asked 34 application level questions and the students asked 7. On Day 4, when the students presented their results, Kaitlin asked them 4 application level questions and 6 analysis questions. I think it is important to note that the highest level questions were asked by the teacher on the day students presented their findings and they were asked to analyze their findings in light of other students’ work, such as “Do you think that if you had used the exact amounts of water and the exact amounts of soil and everybody did the same thing that that would change the information?” This was an analysis question related to the Nature of Science. Another question Kaitlin asked was, “What else would make the results more valid?” So, Kaitlin was engaging her students in Higher Order questions as a way for them to make sense of Nature of Science issues, in addition to trying to help them make sense of the relation of their work to the work of others.
177
The highest percentage of procedural questions happened on Day 3 when the students were conducting their experiments; 74% of the students’ questions were procedural, and 31% of the teachers’. So, during the experimental phase of the inquiry lesson, the focus was off of content and instead on practical aspects of carrying out the investigation.
STIR Analysis Table 6.13 displays the STIR data in a simpler chart. Kaitlin’s students came up with questions from their observations, and these questions were crafted into testable questions. The one caveat I add is that when Kaitlin’s students were not gravitating toward selecting a soil question related to water, Kaitlin nudged them to the water question “How much How much water do the soils absorb?”
Table 6.13. Kaitlin’s STIR Table Results. 1.Question 2.Planning 3.Data Collection 4.Analysis 5.Connection to Science 6.Presentation
LC X
SLC
STC
TC
No Evidence
X X X X X
You can see by a casual look at the STIR results that Kaitlin’s students were engaged in a fairly student centered version of inquiry; planning and conducting their investigation, collecting the data, analyzing their findings, and making posters and telling the class what they did and what they learned. One of the interesting conversations we had, when reviewing our individual responses to the STIR instrument, was that Kaitlin had modeled her decisions after those in the program. For example, nudging her students to select an investigatible question related to soil’s ability to absorb water was what the program staff had done with her and the cadre of RET teachers when they were not focusing on the question, “Why does the periwinkle snail climb the marsh grass.” Kaitlin explained, “I start thinking, we are running out of time and they aren’t getting there and I’m trying to get them there, but 178
they are just not coming along with me, so I make a suggestion. Which, again, is what they did in the summer program.” So, Kaitlin was cognizant of jumping in at various places to advise students, seeing it as quite similar to her experiences in the MET program.
Critical Incidents Analysis In Kaitlin’s critical incident, given as an example earlier in the paper, students are talking about determining moisture content of soil by feel. Kaitlin’s goal was to steer the students toward more scientifically valid methods. Over and over again, when faced with unexpected student questions, Kaitlin stressed issues such as validity, objectivity, rigor, and precision in their language. For example, Kaitlin said, “what do you mean by that, ‘flaky’ means a lot of things to a lot of people…The pieces were falling off and so I was trying to find a more, a lot of the words that the kids use are kind of vague…” In the interview, Kaitlin expressed some frustration that the students often did not take the time to think through their answers, such as when a student suggested that water on soil was a chemical reaction. Her response to them was, When you were little and you played with mud pies and things did you, I mean, do you really expect something to be different about bubbling with soil and water? I mean, otherwise when it rains there we’d be having chemical reactions everywhere.
A look of perplexity would come over Kaitlin’s face when students would say something at odds with what had likely been common life experiences for them. Kaitlin believed that her students knew much more than they thought they knew, and felt that her goal was to stay with them, keep asking them questions, and make them think until they uncovered knowledge that they already had. In the interview Kaitlin said, “I was trying to get them to think about what they were saying; “Is that logical?” In several of the critical incidents with students, Kaitlin was unwilling to allow students to set up their experiments in a way so they would fail, such as not using filter paper when they were pouring water through the soil.
179
Kaitlin’s Teaching Values & Goals Insight into Kaitlin teaching values and goals were derived from her responses both during the critical incidents in her classroom and her later reflection upon those incidents during the interview. Here are some of Kaitlin’s musings, I think I still struggle with that whole idea of letting them do something, and struggling with the value, I guess of letting them just do something if it is wrong, you know, and then having them come back and do it again…I’m thinking that to me it makes more sense to try to help move them or direct them to the way it should be done and help them think about the process of getting there and through that process of getting there rather than then doing it haphazardly in whatever way and then saying that didn’t work, try again. And so, if the second time they come up with some other equally not so productive way of doing it, do we now, you know what I mean. You know, I think it is probably more about me. I think it is. I think it is probably more about me and because of that that I see it as unproductive, I also see it as wasting their time. You know what I mean? I relate to them as kind of a mother away from home, thing. I do kind of treat them like I treat my own children. [M]y whole relationship… with my students is a very complicated mesh of things. You know, that actually end up working for us in a funny sort of way, but…so, we have this authoritarian, “I said do it”, but at the same time, I really try to show them respect in the way that I deal with them so even if we have a blow-out the next day it is over, it’s done with and we start again.
Kaitlin operated on several levels with her students. She was the teacher who was the authority in the classroom, and they were to do as she asked and produce accurate, precise knowledge in the science classroom. She was also like the mother who cares about her students and wanted them to have the tools to pull out what they know and make sense of the world to be successful. And another aspect of Kaitlin was the scientist who believed that science had right and wrong ways to occur. In that way, Kaitlin thought her students needed to be mindful of what they did and their laboratory results
180
needed to be accurate, precise, and repeatable. So, in Beck & Cowan’s (1996) terms, Kaitlin operated at three value levels; authoritative, rationalistic, and communal at the same time. She really was a mix, and one could feel this in her room. Her authoritative values kept her from allowing her students to make the mistakes that might make her inquiry look more student centered.
Future Goals for Inquiry When we discussed Kaitlin’s plans for the future, she told me that she had already altered all sorts of lessons in her classroom, such as using an inquiry-based GEMS paper towel lab to learn the basics of scientific investigations. She explained that she had selected the soil unit specifically because she “considered [it] to be a pretty boring subject anyway,” and wanted to try “to find another way rather than this is pumas and this is clay.” The year following the MET program, Kaitlin not only stayed enrolled as a mater’s student in science education, but she agreed to participate in a Nature of Science study in which she taught using three online software units in her biology classes, and additionally used explicit NOS concepts in content areas that she had not previously taught either with this focus on NOS or with essential features of inquiry. During one of the NOS topics, students learned about Ebola research and how cultural constraints influenced how two groups of scientists approached a very sick patient. Kaitlin had an interest in critical pedagogy, something she had put a name to in her master’s course, and how students who learn about social issues through a link to NOS can encourage them to think about alternative ways to operate.
Summary of Conception and Enactment Changes in Kaitlin From before the program to afterward, there were substantial shifts in what Kaitlin was doing. Pre program, Kaitlin had never taught using inquiry-based methods, largely because she had very negative initial experiences with inquiry and how it was modeled. Then, Kaitlin, enrolled in a master’s course and learned theory about Nature of Science, conceptual change, inquiry, and critical theory. This course was the impetus that encouraged Kaitlin to try out the egg lesson for her pre MET program tape.
181
In the egg activity, students asked questions and Kaitlin had to work hard not to answer them, but guided them to think and try to make sense of what function the structures they observed may serve. Kaitlin had always been focused on what here students came in with, and tried to capitalize on that knowledge. She found questioning to be a useful means to understand what her students were thinking. Therefore, she used questioning as a means of understanding the starting point of students’ understanding so she knew where she ought to focus her efforts in the instruction. Kaitlin described the MET program as giving her a concrete example upon which to ‘hang’ her theoretical knowledge. Therefore, the sense making that had begun in her master’s level theory class was applied as she participated in the Met program and then returned to her classroom. Post program, Kaitlin came to the realization that perhaps it was she who was keeping holding back the more student-centered aspects of inquiry, by insisting that students pursue particular methods in their investigations.
Cross Case Analysis and Discussion To determine what trends existed for these teachers in their implementation of inquiry following the MET program I studied two cases (Rogue and Kaitlin) in detail. Two others (Nate and Michael) provided supporting documentation. The teachers were originally selected because they seemed to share many characteristics (i.e., content knowledge, interest). Table 6.14 summarizes portions of the pre and post program data for all four of the teachers in the study, as well as the primary value structure levels in which they operated in their classrooms. All of the teachers conceived of inquiry in ways that were more learner centered following the program. Nate’s shift was the most remarkable, in part due to the nature of his pre program lesson (an exam review). Data averaged for all the post program data show that the teachers were asking fewer of the questions in the classroom, which means that the students were asking more. Additionally, there was a dramatic increase in the percentage of higher level questions that were asked, both by the teachers and by the students compared with pre program data (Anderson & Krawthwohl, 2003; Hofstein et al., 2005).
182
Table 6.14. Overview of Participants’ Pre and Post Program Data. Data in % Pre Conceptions Learner Centered Post Conceptions Learner Centered Pre Enactment Teacher Questions Post Enactment Teacher Questions* Pre Enactment Teacher High Level Qs* Post Enactment Teacher High Level Qs* Pre Enactment Student High Level Qs* Post Enactment Student High Level Qs* Pre Enactment Teacher Procedural Qs Post Enactment Teacher Procedural Qs STIR Learner Centered Value Structure Levels Pre program Theoretical References Post program Theoretical References
Rogue 62
Kaitlin 46
Nate 8
Michael 51
90
80
61
70
97
76
75
92
82
72
64
67
10
2
0
7
13
27
24
33
0
13
22^
25«
27
22
23
24
2
4
3
0
16
15
15
38
67
82
67
67
Authoritarian Rationalistic Egalitarian None
Rationalisitic Egalitarian Authoritarian NOS CCM Inquiry NOS CCM Inquiry
Rationalistic Authoritarian
Rationalistic Egalitarian
Constructivism«
CCM NOS
Inquiry
CCM NOS Inquiry
Inquiry Learning Cycle
* Indicates all these data are averages Bolded entries indicate most prevalent value structure exhibited ^This number refers to only 3 questions asked by students « This number refers to only 1 question asked or time referenced NOS (Nature of Science), CCM (Conceptual Change Model)
Rogue’s classroom data were the most startling, with a change from no or virtually no higher order questions on the part of the students to nearly a fourth of the students’ questions being at the level of application or above. Another dramatic shift for all teachers was the increase in the number of procedural questions they asked; virtually
183
none pre program and nearly a fourth post program. Were I to display data from the individual stages, you would see that the spikes of procedural questions occurred during the experimental stages, when teachers acted essentially as laboratory assistants and materials helpers as the students worked setting up labs and collecting data. This corresponds to some of the roles Lappert discussed in his earlier study of Cap (1996). Inquiry in these teachers’ classrooms was indeed different post program. Post program STIR data corroborate that the teachers’ post program enactment was solidly focused on students actively conducting the investigations, as intended by the MET program and mirroring Schwab’s level 2 inquiry and Colburn’s guided inquiry (Settlage & Southerland, in review). Indeed, the majority of the post program questionnaire data was coded at either learner centered, or somewhat learner centered for all of these teachers on the STIR instrument (Bodzin & Beerer, 2003). When I investigated the teachers’ underlying values and goals for their classrooms, I found their actions placed them at times in two or more levels. The differences in how teachers tended to operate related to two major areas. The first was in classroom management. Nate is a good example, in that he tended to have a “strict father” demeanor related to such things as students’ talk in class, their need to be in seats, and other issues that related to classroom management. In Kaitlin’s case, most of the discrepancies in her actions dealt with her reluctance to allow students to spend time on things that were “wrong” or would not help them carry out the laboratory. So, in valuing efficiency and correctness, Kaitlin had difficulty letting go of these in the context of the inquiry lesson. She remained aware of this conflict and her struggle with it throughout teaching her lesson and we discussed it at length during the interview and in other conversations about her teaching. Michael frequently allowed things to happen in his classroom that he perceived to be “empowering” to his students, even if that meant it was less efficient or temporarily sent the class in a direction other than what he had originally planned. Therefore, although Michael predominantly taught the course embodying a rationalistic approach to science, stressing independence and self-reliance, he also had a critical component to his teaching.
184
Discussion and Implications
When I began this study, I selected Nate, Rogue, Kaitlin, and Michael, because all four teachers seemed to share many traits: all had strong science content backgrounds, and all were enthusiastic participants of the MET program. In interviews with the teachers, it became clear that Michael and Kaitlin had internalized their learnings from the program, and were thinking in broader ways of how to implement inquiry into more of their teaching. Indeed, early in the fall semester following the program, both had already modified additional lessons to further incorporate inquiry into their classrooms. All of these teachers appear to be enacting inquiry in similar ways. However, the longer term changes in their classrooms appeared much different from one another. Specifically, Rogue and Nate discussed inquiry in terms of a discreet inquiry lesson, whereas Michael and Kaitlin discussed inquiry in much broader terms. Upon further investigation with the teachers, I discovered that the two teachers who appeared to have most internalized their learnings from the program, Michael and Kaitlin, had in fact been enrolled in a graduate theory course just prior to their participation in the MET program. In this program, constructs such as nature of science, inquiry, the learning cycle, and conceptual change theory had been studied and reflected upon within the context of those teachers’ courses. Upon closer investigation of the transcripts of their inquiry teaching and our interviews, multiple references from both of these teachers were coded as to conceptual theory and other theoretical constructs (see Table 6.14 for coding of theoretical references). In Michael’s case, his theoretical focus was primarily on conceptual change theory (Strike & Posner, 1982, as cited in Southerland, et al., 2003), and in Kaitlin’s, the focus was on nature of science (e.g., Schwartz & Lederman, 2004). In contrast, when I returned to the transcripts of Rogue and Nate, the only reference I found to theory with Nate was one reference to inquiry using “constructivist” methods. Pre program, there were no theoretical references by Rogue. Additionally, I noted that Michael and Kaitlin more frequently had critical incidents that coded at the value structure level of “Egalitarian” than had either Nate or
185
Rogue, who tended to operate more often in what Beck and Cowan would describe as the Authoritarian value structure level (1996). In previous research, I found that students who operate at an Authoritarian level are more resistant to change (Davis & Blanchard, 2004). What seemed clear was that the teachers who were operating out of a theoretical framework were more likely to incorporate their MET experience in the broader context of their teaching, rather than to view it as a discrete packet of teaching techniques. Those with more sophisticated understandings of teaching and learning were far more apt to employ the pedagogy from the MET program throughout their classroom teaching practices. I thought back to the classroom constraints of the teachers, as Nate in particular seemed to position the need to cover content in opposition to employing inquiry in his classroom. The literature has many examples of teachers who cite contextual constraints as impediments to their teaching (e.g., McRobbie & Tobin, 1995; Muire, 2000). What was puzzling was that Rogue and Nate, the teachers who least employed inquiry across their teaching, seemed to have the fewest contextual impediments to employing inquiry. Both were located at middle to upper middle class schools, with supportive principals, high standardized test scores, and plenty of supplies. Michael and Kaitlin, on the other hand, both worked at schools rated below average by the state, had very high numbers of minority students (respectively 60% and 90%), and had difficulties purchasing extra supplies. I find strong evidence to support the notion that the presence of a theoretical frame on which Michael and Kaitlin could proverbially “hang their hats” situated the pedagogy of the MET program as a theoretical construct, rather than as a tool kit. As such, these teachers immediately sought ways to incorporate more of their learnings into their teaching, even in small ways, not just as wholesale, full out inquiry lessons. Research experiences for teachers may be more effective if the participants are “primed” to learn from them. In this study, two teachers, unwittingly perhaps, were primed for the inquiry-based experience they encountered at the marine laboratory. Professional developers would be wise to consider pre-program work to similarly prime other teachers for pedagogically-based research experiences as a way to get teachers to
186
explore, reflect upon, and revise their own conceptions of teaching and learning. There are examples of programs that have implemented aspects of theory in their programs, and this study further suggests it holds great potential benefits (e.g., Marx, et al., 2004; Roehrig & Luft, 2004). If in fact this leads to better retention of the theoretical usefulness of the experience, as suggested by this study, than to not do so would indeed be a missed opportunity. In addition, this research suggests that teachers who show values more consistent with Rationalistic or Egalitarian value structures may be better candidates to implement inquiry that those who operate out of an Authoritarian model. This fits with Beck and Cowan’s (1996) model, but also harkens back to Lemke’s (1990) descriptions of the discursive patterns of teachers who must maintain control of the classroom by controlling the talk, which matches the style of a more traditional science classroom. In inquiry, the power is handed over to the students (Davis & Helly, 2004), and for more authoritarian teachers, that is difficult.
187
CHAPTER SEVEN FINDINGS
IN PURSUIT OF THE HOLY GRAIL: UNDERSTANDINIG INQUIRY IN REAL CLASSROOMS THROUGH QUESTION ANALYSIS
Abstract
Understanding teacher’s enactment of inquiry in real classrooms is a goal that seems ever elusive. What is it that happens when teachers return from an RET and are faced with using inquiry-based teaching methods with their students? Scant literature addresses this question, and none have done so with a group of nine teachers from an RET. This research follows nine experienced science teachers into their classrooms following a five-week, field-based, marine ecology RET program, with the intention of gaining an in-depth understanding what it means for these teachers to do inquiry in their classrooms. Thus, the focus of this paper is on the changes in teachers’ enactment of inquiry-based science teaching by teachers from pre to post program lessons, based upon pre and post program videotapes of classroom teaching and interviews. Question analysis was used as a unifying characteristic to analyze inquiry enactment across teacher cases to detect changes from pre to post program, and between different stages of inquiry, by number, cognitive categories, and type. Post program lessons showed substantive differences from pre program, with clear movement toward more student-centered practices. Particularly noteworthy were the increased number of student questions and the increased use of higher order questions in post program lessons. Through reflective use of the STIR instrument, the teachers and researcher better clarified their understandings of inquiry, teachers’ enactment and roles. This research suggests that reflection is a critical component of teachers’ understanding their enactment, an outside person ought to be employed, and the changes in enactment are linked to the lesson
188
design itself. Additionally, enactment must be understood in the context of the classroom conditions.
Introduction
The use of questions in the classroom is a basic way the teacher stimulates student thinking and learning, at least in the U.S. Indeed, research has shown that teachers ask many questions in the school day, often averaging from 65-180 per science lesson. Additionally, students are exposed to written questions from textbooks and on examinations (Gall, 1970; Davis, 1989). Therefore, questions are important in fostering comprehension of material, checking for understanding, and encouraging students to carry out higher levels of cognitive thinking (Rosenshine, Meister, & Chapman, 1996). Teachers’ questions also convey their authority over the classroom, and are often used to force discourse into particular thought paths (Carlson, 1993, as cited in Yerrick, 2000). Lemke (1990) explains that the triadic dialogue (IRE; initiation, response, evaluate) serves as a substitute for the teacher-centered lecture, and is a way for teachers to maintain power in their classroom. This model in which the teacher keeps control is also a way to transmit well-established knowledge about science, which relates both to teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science and their understanding of what it is to teach (Bartholomew et al., 2004). Teacher questions and the discourse patterns of which they are a part indicate many things, including teacher roles. In a traditional classroom, the teacher acts as the knower (i.e. “dispenser of knowledge”) and there is a related student role (i.e. “student as sponge or empty vessel”). Wellington (1981) described the students’ task in most traditional questioning sessions as “guess what’s in the teacher’s head” (as cited in Bartholomew et al., 2004). Bartholomew et al. (2004) believe that teachers’ use of discourse is a very significant dimension of how they teach science. They suggest that effective teaching requires that teachers change roles to act as facilitators of learning and shift the learning goals to ones that focus on reasoning and understanding as well as the acquisition of knowledge. Thus, the intentions of teachers’ questions change with this shift to
189
understanding rather than absorption. This shift in roles and questioning is consistent with NSES goals of inquiry-based science teaching (NRC, 2000). One of the ways science teachers can shift their teaching to potentially increase the level of student reasoning is the use of inquiry-based teaching (AAAS, 1993; NRC, 1996). Yet, teaching science through inquiry has not been widely implemented by teachers due to a wide variety of factors, including a lack of understanding of what inquiry is (Anderson, 2003: Windschitl, 2004). Many teachers have little exposure to science inquiry themselves, and therefore lack images of how to guide their students to inquire (Anderson, 2003; Garafalo, Lindgren, O’Neill, 1992; Granger & Herrnkind, 1999). Additionally, inquiry is difficult to enact and there are factors, such as classroom management and content coverage at the secondary level, that often preclude its enactment (Roehrig & Luft, 2004; McRobbie & Tobin, 1995; Yerrick, 2000). The decisions teachers make about what to teach and their actions indicate what they value in their classrooms (Kegan, 1994). So much of what teachers do is rote or practiced, that many teachers and not that cognizant of what they are doing from moment-to-moment. If a teacher is to decide to make changes in the process of considering new information, they first need to become aware of what they are doing. Then, they need to reflect upon their practices and actively decide to make changes (Dewey, 1910; Schön, 1988; Blanchard, et al., 2005; Blanchard & Southerland, 2006). Providing teachers with professional development and other support has been recognized as a way to assist teachers in making changes, such as the change to inquiry-based science teaching (Bodzin & Beerer, 2003; Granger & Herrnkind, 1999; MacIsaac & Falconer, 2002). Implementing inquiry may require teachers to change what they value in their teaching (Beck & Cowan, 1996; Davis & Blanchard, 2004; Wilber, 2000). One type of professional development, research experiences for teachers (RETs), has been funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) for many years with the intention that these experiences will translate into changes in teacher practice (Frechtling et al., 1995). One such NSF-funded project designed to promote professional development of science teachers was implemented at a large research university’s marine laboratory. For each of the five years of this program, a different cohort of 25 teachers participated in a five-week, field-based experience for teachers. In this research experience, teachers
190
conducted two inquiry-based research projects and then translated what they had learned in the inquiry-based approach modeled in the program into a science lesson for their classroom (Granger & Herrnkind, 1999). Yet did this RET experience translate to teachers’ practice? Davis and Helly’s (2004) study of four elementary teachers from the 2003 MET program indicate that intensive follow-up interaction was needed for those teachers to gain an understanding of teaching using inquiry. Even then, two of these teachers who understood inquiry were still unable to enact it with their students. A study of two marine science teachers in the 2004 MET program (Blanchard et al., 2005) showed evidence that the teachers’ conceptions of inquiry-based teaching had changed. These teachers were able to enact the inquiry in a manner quite consistent with the inquiry modeled in the MET program. Yet, constraints related to their beliefs about efficiency, content coverage, and teacher roles threatened a fuller acceptance and possible future use of inquiry-based science teaching. In the Blanchard et al. study (2005), changes in questions and questioning patterns indicated changes in enactment of inquiry from pre program to post program teaching for two science teachers who participated in the MET research experience. The method used for classifying questions was based on a revised Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Huitt, 2004), a classification system that orders questions based on the type of cognitive process (knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation) required to answer the question. Questions at the cognitive level of knowledge and comprehension return information in a form close to how it was learned. As such, these are cognitively lower level questions. Questions at the application level and above are higher level in the sense that they require the individual to take the information and make further interpretations (Hofstein et al., 2005). Students remember more when they learn to handle topics presented using higher levels of questions, because more elaboration is required of them (Huitt, 2004). Carlsen found that student participation increased when teachers relinquished control and did not evaluate student responses. Indeed, if low-level teacher questions dominated the speaking time it tended to discourage students from asking questions, essentially
191
discouraging student participation (Roth, 1996). Van Zee’s research (2000, 2001) showed that during low-level taxonomic discourse, teachers often asked questions to try to test students’ knowledge (accountability) rather than to develop understanding of students’ thinking (conceptual learning). Hofstein et al. (2005) cite several recent studies that connect asking questions with increased student thinking skills, enhanced creativity, critical thinking, and problem solving. Therefore, the cognitive level of both student and teacher questions may be elevated and the accompanying roles of teachers and students may be shifted if the science lesson promotes those changes. Did the lesson the teachers developed and implemented from the MET program accomplish this? My goals were to look across nine secondary science teachers who participated in the 2004 MET program and to see how they enacted science teaching during a follow-up lesson that was modeled on an inquiry-based approach to science teaching. The research questions for this study are: 1). How did teachers’ and students’ questions differ from pre to post program? 2). What does the question analysis indicate about teachers’ changes in enactment of classroom inquiry following a research experience for teachers? 3). What are the implications of this study?
Research Methodology
Context The Marine Ecology for Teachers (MET) program was designed to provide opportunities for secondary-science teachers to participate in field-based research with mentor scientists as guides and resident experts, and to engage in deep reflection upon what this means for their science teaching practice (for an in-depth description of the MET program, see Blanchard & Southerland, 2006). During the five weeks of the MET program, the teacher participants conducted inquiry-based experiments in the salt marshes and coastal ecosystems of Florida’s Big Bend region. Concurrently, through carefully constructed activities, the teachers reflected upon the research experience itself as a methodology for teaching science (e.g.,
192
Dutrow, 2005). In the final week of the program, teachers adapted a lesson from their content areas, based upon a model of inquiry that they developed through the reflection activities facilitated by the scientists and educators leading the MET program. The stages of inquiry that were developed and modeled by the program leaders were: Stage 1) orientation (safety/comfort); Stage 2) fieldwork (experience a provocative phenomenon/experience that inspires questions); Stage 3) debriefing (students generate questions from observations); Stage 4) experimentation (design/conduct experiments); Stage 5) data analysis (analyze/display/write up results); and Stage 6) presentation (students present and discuss their findings with the whole class). Once the teachers returned to their classrooms, they were asked to teach the inquiry-based lessons they had developed with their own students, videotape a portion of it, and answer a post-program questionnaire about their conceptions based on this lesson.
Participants in the Study Of the thirteen secondary science teachers who participated in the 2004 MET program, nine of them participated in this study. Table 7.1 gives an overview. Table 7.1. Teacher Participant Overview. Name*, Ethnicity, Gender, Age, Degrees Princess, AA Female, 48 B.S. Criminology M.S. Special Education Ed. S. in progress, Special Education Michael, AA Male, 32 B.S. biochemistry
Years of experience
Classroom descriptions
Pre/Post Lesson topic
School context
15
6th special education science
Mosquitoes
850 students, 90% AA, 51% free and reduced lunch
11th chemistry
P,V, & T relationships, 1 day
9th Physical Science
Bottle rocket flight, 11 days
4
Factors influencing plant growth
193
Rural, grades 8-12, 33% AA, 33% W, 33% H, “D” rated school, NW FL
Table 7.1. Continued. 9th Honors integrated science
Egg structure & function, 1 day
4
10th Food Prep
Soil absorption, 4 days Baking soda & Vinegar reaction Mold growth
Nate, EA Male, 36 B.S biology M.S. Science education
4
10th biology
Exam review session, 1 day
11th Marine science
Wave action, 8 days
Rogue, EA Female, 34 B.S. Secondary science education
11
7th Integrated science
Physical & chemical changes, 1 day
Kaitlin, AA Female, 43 B.S. biology, M.S. in progress, science education
8
Sage, EA Female, 33 B.S. Culinary Arts
Charity, EA Female, 25 B.S. Biology M.S. Biology
2
Mark, EA Male, 31 B.S. English Education
7 (3 in science)
Jamilla, AA Female, 46 B.S.
20
9th Aquatic science
Light & color wheels, 3 days Betta fish behaviors
1000 students, Former Title 1 school, mid-sized urban setting, 80% AA, “C” rated school, NW FL
Large, middle class school in a mid-sized town with somewhat rural population. 1850 students, 75% W, historically prominent public high school, primarily lower to upper middle class, mid-sized urban setting, “B” rated school, NW FL. 90% W, middle class, rural-suburban, “A” rated school, NW FL
Betta fish behaviors
500 students, highly mobile population, middle class, approx. 48% W, 52% H/AA, suburban
10th Integrated Science
Shark organ structures & functions Soil filtration
1850 students, 75% W, lower to upper middle class, mid-sized urban setting.
8th life science
Plant tropisms, 1 day Plant tropisms, 3 days
300 students, private Christian academy, located in suburb to major city, 95% AA, middle to upper class, C GA.
6th life science *Pseudonym (AA-African American; EA-European American)
194
In terms of teacher demographics, I observed that the teachers had a wide range of differences, including: age, years of experience, location, subjects taught, and content developed for their inquiry-based lesson.
Data Sources There were five sources of data employed to describe teachers’ understanding of enactment of inquiry. These included: 1) Recordings of science lessons, pre/post. MET program videotapes/audiotapes of teachers conducting a inquiry-based lesson for question analysis (Huitt, 2004); 4) STIR instrument (Bodzin & Beerer, 2003), post program. STIR was completed by researcher and teacher after the post program inquiry lesson, negotiated into one score (Guba & Lincoln, 1989); 3) Interviews, post program (Erlandson et al., 1993); 7) Participant observation. Teachers were observed and field notes were recorded during the RET experience, classroom observations, and conversations with teachers; and 5) Lesson plans and student materials generated by teachers for inquiry lessons. Each of these data sources will be described in more detail in the following section.
Recordings of Science Lessons, Pre/Post I used transcriptions from the classroom recordings of teachers’ classroom teaching as data to describe the teachers’ enactment of inquiry. Before participating in the program, teachers were asked to: Make a video or audiotape of your own teaching. The tape will be your source of data for your responses to the questionnaire. The suggested guidelines for the tape are that it encompass a representative science lesson that includes your interactions with students and is about 30 minutes or longer in length time (Dutrow, 2005)
The program staff were careful not to give highly specific directions, as they did not want instructions on inquiry to precede the teachers’ MET program experiences. Teachers’
195
acceptance to the program hinged upon the completion of this activity. For the post program enactment data, inquiry-based teaching episodes were recorded both via an audiorecorder mounted on the teacher and a camcorder that captured the class as a whole. This enabled the teachers to complete a pre program questionnaire that would begin the program’s reflective model, starting with the teacher’s pre program responses to the questionnaire.
STIR Instrument, Post Program The STIR rubric was initially expected to function as another external verification of the teachers’ enactment of inquiry (see Table 7.5). Therefore it was to be a measure of enactment. Because it was completed after review of the transcripts (and with copies of the transcripts present, in most cases), during the joint negotiation of the STIR instrument, the teacher and the researcher could verify what had transpired during the teaching of the inquiry lesson by referring back to the transcripts. In its original use with elementary teachers (Bodzin & Beerer, 2003), the scores of the STIR differed according to who filled it out. That is, the researchers tended to score a lesson as more teachercentered than the elementary teachers. One of my concerns was whether this would be the case in this research with secondary science teachers. A second function of the STIR instrument was as a reflective tool. Discussions surrounding the instrument seemed to be a vital component of the process of a teacher’s self-awareness of his or her enactment of inquiry. For example, it was through comparison of her own scoring on the STIR instrument with that of the researcher that Rogue became aware that she had given her students the questions to investigate, rather than allowing her students to develop the questions. This process worked both directions, as the researcher also reconsidered how she had scored the rubric, and on several occasions the researcher’s initial score was shifted after a conversation with the teacher. Therefore, differing scores prompted both the teacher and the researcher to explain their reasoning for why they had arrived at the score they did, reciting the evidence. Thus, it was used as a tool for negotiating understanding of classroom enactment.
196
Interviews, Post Program Teachers were formally interviewed following data analysis. The overarching purpose of the interviews was for the researcher to share interpretations of the data, ask “why did you do this?”, and have the teacher either confirm the interpretation, disagree with it, or help the researcher to better flesh out or understand what the teacher had been thinking or the intent behind their practice. A second purpose of the interview was to have the teacher complete a STIR rubric. The researcher completed a separate STIR rubric prior to the interview. Then the teacher and researcher reviewed their ratings, with the goal of negotiating a consensus (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). A final purpose of the interview was to review some of the critical incidents with the teacher and to use those conversations (as well as questions about what the teacher thought science was, and whether they did science, etc.) to try to gain a clearer understanding of the goals and underlying values of the teachers. What influenced their decisions? What were they primarily trying to achieve? The protocol for this portion of the interview is found below. Structured Teacher Interview Questions: 21. What did you do when you taught your inquiry-based lesson? 22. Did you teach the lesson as originally planned during the MET program? What did you change? 23. What were your goals? What is the evidence that your goals were met? 24. Why did you teach it as you did? 25. What was different here than when you taught a part of it at the marine lab? Explain. 26. If nothing stood in your way, how would you teach this lesson in your classroom? How would you describe the MET program to someone who was not familiar with it? What would you say it was (i.e. a class, an in-service, a…? 27. What is teaching? 28. What is science? 29. Do you do science in your classroom?
197
30. Here is an incident where I think the student asked you a question you hadn’t anticipated. Is this the case? What were you thinking when you responded the way you did? Why did you decide to handle the situation that way?
Participant Observation The researcher spent the entire five weeks of the MET program with the 24 teachers who participated during the summer of 2004. This time was spent in activities such as helping various teacher groups with data collection, giving them rides to collect materials, eating together, and watching research presentations. Thus, all of the teachers in this study were well acquainted with the researcher prior to their decision to participate in the research project. These observations gave the researcher insight into the goals and values of each teacher, general thoughts and perhaps some inkling as to how the teachers might implement inquiry in their classrooms. Additionally, the researcher directly observed six of the teachers as they taught their follow-up inquiry lesson in their classrooms, relying on videotaped lessons and phone interviews for three teachers who were at a distance. During this time, the researcher kept field notes of the teachers who were directly observed, such as decisions the teacher made throughout the class period, and emerging researcher questions.
Data Analysis Two main types of data analysis were employed: 1) transcripts of inquiry lessons, used for question analysis; and 2) the STIR instrument, Mine, the teacher’s, and our negotiated version, to confirm inquiry enactment (Bodzin & Beerer, 2003). This research took place in the classrooms of nine different secondary teachers, all of whom taught science, except for one teacher who taught food preparation. Teachers submitted videos of teaching prior to participating in the institute and videos of their teaching following the institute. All of the lessons were centered on science topics. Pre program lessons were generally one 50-minute class period. Teachers followed pre program instructions to tape a lesson that was “inquiry-based or typical.” Post program lessons ranged from one day to eleven days, with the average length about four days. The lessons taught were the inquiry lessons teachers designed or refined during the MET
198
program. For six of the participants, the researcher videotaped the lesson and took field notes while the teacher carried around an audiocassette recorder. For the three teachers at a distance, the teacher collected the data. Primarily, these recordings focused on the teachers’ comments to students and interactions between the teacher and the students. Only occasional student conversations were captured, but student talk and student interaction was not captured and was not the focus of my analysis. Taped transcripts of pre and post program inquiry lessons were obtained and all the questions were coded using a revised Bloom’s taxonomy table by the following: 1) who initiated the question, teacher or student; 2) whether the question was content or noncontent; 3) the taxonomic level of the question; 4) the nature of noncontent questions; and 5) the number of questions asked by both the teacher and the students for each of these categories. Results of pre and post question data were compared for each individual (i.e. Nate’s and his students’ pre versus his post for every class period) and between all nine teachers as a group, pre and post. Post program STIR instruments were completed by both the researcher and the teacher, then discussed and any responses that were not in agreement were negotiated into a shared response.
Coding Content Questions From the transcripts, all of the content questions from both the teacher and the student were coded using a revised Bloom’s taxonomy (Huitt, 2004). Additionally, all non-content questions were coded and classified. The number and taxonomic level of each conceptual question was determined and recorded on separate data sheets, one for the teacher and one for the student for each day of the lesson. Samples of the coding were presented in an earlier paper [See Blanchard & Southerland, 2006], but examples are listed in Table 7.2. Coding the questions was dependent upon the context of the questions. One question could be coded at different cognitive levels depending on factors such as whether the topic had been previously introduced, the intentions of the teacher, or the way the question was interpreted by the student. Therefore, the examples in Table 2 are given with the caveat that the categorization of the questions may seem ambiguous
199
without the accompanying context in which it occurred. Additionally, the very coding of the questions requires the assumption that we can ascertain what one is thinking through external signs, in this case, questions (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).
Table 7.2. Examples of Teacher Questions Coded using a Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy Level Knowledge
Definition Student recalls or recognizes information, ideas, and principles in the approximate form in which they were learned.
Comprehension
Student translates, comprehends, or interprets information based on prior learning.
Application
Student selects transfers, and uses data and principles to complete a problem or task with a minimum of direction.
Analysis
Student distinguishes, classifies, and relates the assumptions, hypotheses, evidence, or structure of a statement of question. Student originates, integrates, and combines ideas into a product, plan, or proposal that is new to him or her.
Sample Verbs Write List Label Name State Define Explain Summarize Paraphrase Describe Illustrate Use Compute Solve Demonstrate Apply Construct
Examples What is amplitude? What is an example of an echinoderm?
What else have we learned about matter? Why do you have ‘brown’ written down? How would you test that? How are you going to determine which one has the most water? How can we use this test tube to find out if there is soap in the water?
Analyze What factor of the wind is Categorize creating the greater height on the Compare waves? Contrast Separate Synthesis Create * Design Hypothesize Invent Develop Evaluation Student appraises, assesses, or Judge * critiques on a basis of specific Recommend standards and criteria Critique Justify • Synthesis and Evaluation are considered to be at the same level. * There were no questions coded at the synthesis or evaluation level for any of the teachers or students
Following this rubric, the participants’ coded questions were tabulated. The student questions were coded onto a separate tally sheet by the same manner.
200
Coding Noncontent Questions Questions with no conceptual focus were categorized separately. After much reflection on the nature of the teacher and student questions within the context of the classroom, it was decided that procedural and rhetorical questions were potentially important indicators of the nature of how the classroom operated, and all of the other questions (orienting, clarification, repeat/read the question, and other noncontent questions) had more to do with the style of the teacher than the nature of the inquiry instruction. [See Table 7.3 for a summary of the noncontent question categories and examples of each. By noncontent I mean not conceptual in nature.] Therefore, although I coded all of the noncontent question data, I only used the procedural and the rhetorical questions when I computed the total noncontent question numbers. What this did was reduce the number of teacher questions that were nonessential in understanding the nature of the classroom instruction. Table 7.3 shows examples of the coding of different noncontent questions. Table 7.3. Sample Coding of Noncontent Questions Type of Noncontent Question Rhetorical
Description
Example
Posed by teacher posed and either answered himself or left unanswered.
Have you ever realized that oysters tend to cement to one another?
Procedural
Related to materials, specifics of the assignment, etc
Prompting/Orienting Questions Repeat Question/Read Question
Mostly referred to calling on students.
Do we need to write this down? Who is going to manage materials? You guys got any interesting questions? Our question is, ‘How would the rocket’s weight make it fly?’ You mean, is there a chemical reaction? What’s the camera for? May I use the restroom?
Clarification Noncontent Questions
Reading a lab question out loud or repeating a question, because it had not been heard or to let everyone hear it. Checking on directions or making sure something was understood correctly Personal talk that did not fall under one of the other categories
Why I Coded Questions There were several reasons underlying my decision to analyze questions. First, the MET program placed a heavy emphasis on questions (Granger & Herrnkind, 1999). The provocative phenomenon was intended to promote student questions, then students were
201
to re-tool those questions into testable ones, and often the results of the experiments actually raised new questions rather than necessarily answering the initial research questions. Additionally, the analysis of questions gave a common denominator to these nine classrooms, in which lessons often looked very different from one another. For example, some of the pre program lessons were laboratory based, some were students making observations, and some were closer to a lecture format. The analysis of questions, which were present in each of the classrooms, allowed us a common factor with which to compare classrooms in which the nature of the activities were often different.
Starting with the Individual Teacher’s Data Table 7.4. Sample Individual Pre and Post Program Data Table for one Teacher, Rogue. Question Analysis by Each Day of the Inquiry Lesson [T = Teacher, S = Student]. Pre Program Question Data Question Type Conceptual % Lower % Higher % content Procedural % of total Rhetorical % of total % Noncontent Speaker % of Qs Raw Q Data Total # Stage Post Program Question Data Type of Question Conceptual % Lower % Higher % content Procedural % of total Rhetorical % of total % Noncontent Questions asked % Speaker Raw Q Data Total # Stage
T-PRE 90 10 70 2 11
S-PRE 100 0 14 67 0
30 97 90 1,2,4,5
86 3 3 1,2,4,5
T-DAY 1 81 19 45 17 3
S-DAY 1 62 38 33 41 0
T-DAY 2 97 3 54 22 0
S-DAY 2 100 0 9 86 0
T-DAY 3 84 16 66 8 1
S-DAY 3 58 42 75 8 0
55
67
46
91
34
25
73 60 1,2,3
27 22 1,2,3
85 41 4
15 7 4
88 98 5,6
12 13 5,6
202
For each of the teachers in this study I prepared a table like Table 7.4. Then, I summarized these data into tables for cross case analysis of the nine teachers.
Differences in Lessons The teachers taught a variety of days, and the pre and post program lessons were different topics for all but one teacher (Charity). One teacher, Max, taught for just one day in his post program lesson. Rogue taught for three days, and Michael taught for eleven days. These differences made it difficult to see patterns in what was going on between the questions in the different classrooms, and I wanted to figure out how to see more clearly what had happened between teachers. When I looked at the nature of what occurred on each day in each teacher’s classroom, I was able to collapse the six stages into three categories, based on the fact that Day 1 of most of the teachers’ lessons usually involved the same stages. For instance, the first three stages of the program, orientation, fieldwork, and debriefing all occurred together, usually on the first day of the unit. The next stage, experimentation, tended to occur discreetly, and for those who did more extensive labs, such as Michael, the experimentation (shooting off bottle rockets) took many days. In lessons that took less time, the stages data analysis and presentation were often in the same day, if they were present. In order to compare the nature of what happened with questioning in Michael’s classroom and Rogue’s, I wanted to see compare a like unit of time. In the case of Michael, his students spent many days shooting off bottle rockets. But the nature of questioning that occurred on Day #1 of shooting off the rockets was very similar to what occurred on Day #3 of shooting off rockets. Therefore, I took the multiple days’ data of the same stage for teachers like Michael, and averaged all of the days to get an average number of student and teacher questions during that stage. In Tables 10, 11 and 12 you will see that each teacher has just one column for each of the three stages, and for teachers who taught the same thing on more days, these data are averaged. The number of days that stage took for each teacher is indicated in the last row of each table.
203
STIR Instrument, Post Program As explained earlier, the STIR instrument was both a measure of inquiry as it was enacted in the classroom, and an instrument with which the teacher could reflect on her lesson through scoring her own teaching using the instrument, and then negotiating one shared version between the researcher and the teacher. Table 7.5 shows the STIR instrument as it was negotiated between Princess and the researcher. They were in agreement on two of the items in the instrument, but disagreed on items #1,4, and 6. Originally, Princess had responded to item #1, Teacher provides an opportunity for learners to engage with a scientifically oriented question as Somewhat Learner Centered (SLC) and the researcher had marked it as Learner Centered (LC). Upon discussion, both parties agreed that the students had indeed formulated their own conclusions. The discussion of the lesson involved the teacher and the researcher explaining her rationale for the coding on the STIR rubric. Interestingly, once Princess and the researcher reviewed each of the items and both made changes in order to come to agreement, they both felt confident that their responses best reflected what had occurred in the classroom. Thus, the instrument functioned as a check and balance on first responses, and a way to reflect on what had actually happened during the lesson (in Princess’s case over about six weeks of class time of growing plants under different light conditions).
Findings
In this section I present data from the nine teachers in the study. I begin with a table that shows an overview of how each of the teachers enacted the inquiry stages, Table 7.6. Then, I summarize pre program question data for all teachers and students in Table 7.7, and for post program question data in Tables 7.8, 7.9 & 7.10. After each table I will discuss what trends I see in looking at the aggregate data for the nine teachers’ classrooms, which includes both student and teacher questions.
204
Table 7.5. Princess’s Negotiated STIR Rubric. Learner Centered -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Teacher centered Learners are engaged by scientifically oriented questions. (1)Teacher provides an [LC] Learner is [SLC] Teacher suggests [STC] Teacher [TC] Teacher provides E. No evidence opportunity to engage prompted to formulate topic areas or provides offers learners lists learners with specific observed for learners with a own questions or samples to help learners of questions or stated (or implied) scientifically oriented hypothesis to be tested. formulate own hypotheses from questions or hypotheses question. questions or hypothesis. which to select. to be investigated. X Learners give priority to evidence, which allows them to develop and evaluate explanations that address scientifically oriented questions. (2)Teacher engages Learners develop Teacher encourages Teacher provides Teacher provides the No evidence observed learners in planning procedures and learners to plan and guidelines for learners procedures and investigations to gather protocols to conduct a full to plan and conduct part protocols for the evidence in response to independently plan and investigation, providing of an investigation. students to conduct the questions. conduct a full support and scaffolding Some choices are made investigation. investigation. with making decisions. by the learners. X (3)Teacher helps Learners determine Teacher directs learners Teacher provides data Teacher provides data No evidence observed learners give priority to what constitutes to collect certain data or and asks learners to and gives specific evidence which allows evidence and develop only provides portion f analyze. direction on how data is them to draw procedures for needed data. Often to be analyzed. conclusions and/or gathering and analyzing provides protocols for develop and evaluate relevant data (as data collection. explanations that appropriate). address scientifically X oriented questions.
205
Table 7.5. continued. Learner Centered ----------------------------------------------------------------Teacher centered Learners formulate explanations and conclusions from evidence to address scientifically oriented questions. (4)Learners evaluate their Learners are prompted to Teacher prompts learners Teacher directs learners’ conclusions and/or analyze evidence (often in to think about how attention (often through explanations from the form of data) and analyzed evidence leads to questions) to specific evidence to address formulate their own conclusions/explanations, pieces of analyzed scientifically oriented conclusions but does not cite specific evidence (often in the form questions. /explanations. evidence. of data) to draw conclusions and/or formulate evidence.
Teacher directs learners’ attention (often through questions) to specific pieces of analyzed evidence (often in the form of data) to lead learners to predetermined correct conclusions/explanations (verification).
No evidence observed
X Learners evaluate the explanations in light of alternative explanations, particularly those reflecting scientific understanding. (5)Learners evaluate their Learner is prompted to Teacher provides Teacher does not provide Teacher explicitly states conclusions and/or examine other resources resources to relevant resources to relevant specific connections explanations in light of and make connections scientific knowledge that scientific knowledge to and/or explanations, but alternative conclusions/ and/or explanations may help identify help learners formulate does not provide explanations, particularly independently. alternative conclusions alternative conclusions resources. those reflecting scientific and/or explanations. and/or explanations. understanding. Teacher may or may not Instead, the teacher direct learners to examine identifies related scientific these resources, however. knowledge that could lead to such alternatives, or suggests possible connections to such alternatives.
Learners communicate and justify their proposed explanations (6)Learners communicate Learners specify content Teacher talks about how to and justify their proposed and layout to be used to improve communication, conclusions and/or communicate and justify but does not suggest explanations. their conclusions and content or layout. explanations.
Teacher provides possible content to include and/or layout that might be used.
Teacher specifies content and/or layout to be used.
X Marking an X in the box indicates the teacher thinks this description best matches their classroom teaching of this particular inquiry lesson. (Adapted from Bodzin & Cates, as cited in Bodzin & Beerer, 2003)
206
No evidence observed
X
No evidence observed
Stages of Inquiry The teachers in this study were all a part of the same professional development program. They all were to develop an age and content appropriate lesson using the MET model. All of the teachers’ lessons were read by program staff during the last week of the program, and. If the lessons were missing stages of the MET model, the teachers were helped to try to include the missing stages. Despite this coaching and time spent, there were teachers who did not include all of the stages when they implemented the lesson. Table 7.6 shows a comparison of how the teachers enacted their lesson in terms of the stages modeled in the program.
Table 7.6. Comparison of MET Stages of Inquiry, as enacted by Teachers in Post Program Lesson. Teacher
Charity Jamilla Kaitlin Mark Michael Nate Princess Rogue Sage
Stage1 Orientation (safety, comfort)
X
X X
Stage 2 Fieldwork (provocative phenomenon) X X X PARTIAL X X X X X
Stage 3 Debriefing (students generate questions) X X X PARTIAL X X X X X
Stage 4 Experimentation (design/conduct experiment) X X X X X X X X
Stage 5 Data Analysis (analyze/display /write up results) X X X PARTIAL X X X X X
Stage 6 Presentation (present/discuss findings with whole class) X
X X X X
Pre Program Question Data In Table 7.7, I include summary question data for all of the teachers’ pre program lessons. Although Max taught a pre program lesson, the audiotape of the lesson was lost during a summer move, and therefore was not available for analysis. Data from all six cognitive levels of Bloom’s taxonomy were coded, and the first two levels, Knowledge & Comprehension were put together into the category “low level questions.” Questions coded at the levels of Application, Analysis, Synthesis, & Evaluation were put into the category “high level questions” (Hofstein et al., 2005). [Note: no questions were coded at the Synthesis and Evaluation levels in this study.] Most of these data are represented
207
Table 7.7. Summary Data for all Teachers of Pre Program Question Data. Pre Program data Charity
Michael
Nate
Kaitlin
Rogue
Princess
Sage
Jamilla
Max
Question Type
T
S
T
S
T
S
T
S
T
S
T
S
T
S
T
S
T
S
% Low
78
80
93
80
100
78
98
87
90
100
91
100
100
100
97
0
NA•
NA
% High
22
20
7
20
0
22
2
13
10
0
9
0
0
0
3
0
NA
NA
% Procedural
90
100
0
0
50
100
100
100
17
100
0
0
100
100
0
0
NA
NA
% Rhetorical
10
0
0
0
50
0
0
0
83
0
100
0
0
0
100
0
NA
NA
% Content
53
38
100
50
95
69
96
83
87
33
88
100
72
50
97
0
NA
NA
% Noncontent
47
62
0
50
5
31
4
17
13
67
12
0
28
50
3
0
NA
NA
% T/% S
45
55
93
7
75
25
76
24
97
3
96
4
82
18
100
0
NA
NA
Total Raw #
43
53
81
6
38
13
56
18
90
3
102
4
18
4
31
0
NA
NA
# Days avg. *
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
* Teachers who taught the pre program lesson on one day are “1,” on two days are “2.” • NA indicates the teacher taught the lesson but these data were not available to the researcher.
208
as percentages to ease comparisons between teachers, whose styles caused them to ask different overall numbers of questions. Procedural and Rhetorical questions are represented as percentages, and all other noncontent questions were determined to be inconsequential to the nature of the classroom instruction, and eliminated. Next, the percentage of teacher questions were compared to the percentage of student questions, to try to illuminate the locus of classroom control. Raw numbers are listed next, so you can see that ‘7% student questions’ might mean they asked 6 questions, for instance. In some cases, like Michael’s, the pre program lesson lasted two days. The last column indicates the number of days spent in the pre program lesson. The most common pattern in the pre program question data is the predominance of low level, teacher-dominated questions. Charity was an exception, and indeed her laboratory on Betta fish behavior was very interactive, student-centered, and inquirybased. Kaitlin’s students also asked a lot of questions, but most of them were seeking factual or explanatory answers by the teacher. Most of the questions are cognitive, dealing with rather than noncontent questions of a rhetorical or procedural nature. Figures 7.1 and 7.2 highlight these differences.
Pre Program Questions by Cognitive Level 120 100 80
Ques. Type
60
% Low
40
% High
20
ax M
Na te Ka itli n Ro g Pr ue in ce ss Sa ge Ja m illa
Ch ar it y M ich ae l
0
Figure 7.1. Pre Program Questions of Teachers’ and Students’ High and Low Level Questions. 209
. Pre Program Student & Teacher Questions by Percentage
% Teacher
Pr in ce ss Sa g Ja e m illa M ax
% Student
Ka itli n Ro gu e
Ch ar M it y ich ae l Na te
120 100 80 60 40 20 0
Figure 7.2. Pre Program Teacher & Student Questions, by Percentage Post Program Data In the vast majority of the post program inquiry lessons, the teacher covered the first three stages of inquiry modeled in the MET program, Orientation, Provocative Phenomenon, & Debriefing in the first day of class. This matches the model of the MET program. In Orientation, safety and comfort were established (Stage 1). In Stage 2, a provocative phenomenon (situation that would cause students to ask questions) was presented. In Debriefing, students generated questions from their observations (Stage 3). Most teachers taught the post program lesson from 3-11 days, with an average of about four days. In Max’s case, he only taught his post program lesson for one day (a soil filtration activity), and Michael taught for eleven days (constructing bottle rockets). Summary data for Stages 1, 2, and 3 are illustrated in Table 7.8.
210
Table 7.8. Summary Data for all Teachers of Post Program Question Data, Stages 1, 2, & 3. [Orientation, Provocative Phenomenon, & Debriefing] Post Program Data Charity
Michael
Nate
Kaitlin
Rogue
Princess
Sage
Question. Type
T
S
T
S
T
S
T
S
T
% Low
76
86
39
88
75
50
96
77
81
% High
24
14
61
12
25
50
4
23
19
% Procedural
80
100
71
100
6
100
33
100
83
% Rhetorical
20
0
29
0
94
0
67
0
% Content
34
78
90
84
78
83
90
65
% Noncontent
66
22
10
16
22
17
10
% T/% S
87
13
90
10
87
13
59
Total Raw #
61
9
166
19
83
12
# Days avg. *
1
1
1
1
1
1
Jamilla
Max
S
T
S
T
62
90
80
71
S
T
S
T
S
100
100
38
--
--
38
10
20
29
100
46
100 0
0
0
62
--
--
0
0
0
--
--
17
0
54
0
80
59
90
63
100
0
0
0
--
--
88
100
100
100
--
--
35
20
41
10
41
73
27
94
37
12
0
0
0
--
--
6
62
38
50
50
--
--
29
20
60
22
1
1
1
1
132
8
8
5
8
8
--
--
1
1
1
1
1
1
O
O
* Teachers who taught stages 1, 2, & 3 on one day are “1,” teachers who did not do this stage are “0.” • -- indicates the teacher did not spend enough class time in this stage for it to be coded.
Table 7.9. Summary Data for all eachers of Post Program Question Data, Stage 4 [Experimentation]. Post Program data Charity
Michael
Nate
Kaitlin
Rogue
Question Type
T
S
T
S
T
S
T
S
T
% Low
85
100
75
51
70
55
59
53
97
% High
15
0
25
49
30
45
41
47
3
% Procedural
100
100
92
100
73
100
86
100
100
% Rhetorical
0
0
8
0
27
0
14
0
0
% Content
50
50
49
24
69
68
82
54
78
% Noncontent
50
50
51
76
31
32
8
46
22
% T/% S
87
13
56
44
61
41
81
19
85
Total Raw #
26
4
247
193
131
88
117
28
41
# Days avg. * 1 1 5 5 2 2 2 2 1 * Teachers who taught stage on one day are “1,” teachers who did not do this stage are “0 ° NA means this stage was taught, but was not captured on videotape.
Princess
Sage
S
T
S
T
S
T
S
T
S
100
86
100
100
0
NA°
NA
83
100
0
14
0
0
0
NA
NA
17
0
100
75
100
100
100
NA
NA
88
100
0
25
0
0
0
NA
NA
12
0
14
69
20
71
0
NA
NA
53
30
86
31
80
29
100
NA
NA
47
70
15
91
9
64
36
NA
NA
77
23
7
52
5
7
4
NA
NA
34
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
211
Jamilla
Max
Table 7.10. Summary Data for all Teachers of Post Program Question Data, Stages 5 & 6 [Data Analysis & Presentation]. Post Program data Charity
Michael
Nate
Princess
Sage
Jamilla
Max
Ques. type
T
S
T
S
T
S
T
Kaitlin S
T
Rogue S
T
S
T
S
T
S
T
S
% Low
64
78
73
100
73
90
52
100
84
58
98
100
NA
NA
100
38
NA
NA
% High
36
22
27
0
27
10
48
0
16
42
2
0
NA
NA
0
62
NA
NA
% Procedural
82
0
100
100
59
100
100
100
89
100
0
0
NA
NA
0
0
NA
NA
% Rhetorical
18
0
0
0
41
0
0
0
11
0
100
0
NA
NA
0
0
NA
NA
% Content
50
100
71
40
66
63
84
56
91
92
94
100
NA
NA
100
100
NA
NA
% Nonconent
50
0
29
60
34
37
16
44
9
8
6
0
NA
NA
0
0
NA
NA
% T/% S
71
29
74
26
77
23
74
26
88
12
98
2
NA
NA
56
44
NA
NA
Total Raw #
22
9
56
20
110
32
25
9
98
13
51
1
NA
NA
10
8
NA
NA
# Days avg.
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
Post program, there was more of a balance between the number of questions asked by the teacher and the students. Also, there was a higher percentage of higher level questions than had been present in the pre program lessons. More noncontent questions were asked, especially by the teacher, in the post program lessons. In general, there were more student questions. Additionally, the lessons themselves lasted on average three days longer than they had prior to the teachers’ experiences in the RET. Teachers whose pre program lessons had been more ‘traditional’ (such as Nate) showed greater differences in questions numbers and patterns in post program lessons. Teachers whose pre program lessons more closely resembled inquiry (such as Charity) exhibited fewer changes in the post program lesson.
212
Negotiating the STIR Instrument The process of negotiating the STIR instrument was an interesting one. During one of the earliest interview with Nate, our ratings on the STIR instrument agreed, with the exception of one category. After a brief discussion, we came to a consensus. Table 7.11 contains the negotiated STIR results for all of the teachers. Table.7.11. All Teachers’ STIR Table Results on Post Program Lesson. Charity Michael Nate Kaitlin Rogue Princess Jamilla Sage Max
LC 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 0 0
SLC 2 2 3 3 2 1 1 1 1
STC 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 3 2
TC 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2
No Evidence 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1
The process felt very different with teachers whose responses differed greatly from the researcher’s. One such example was with Sage, as illustrated in Table 7.12. Table 7.12. Original STIR Results of Researcher and Sage. Sage Researcher
LC 2 1
SLC 2 1
STC 2 0
TC 0 3
No Evidence 0 1
In this case, it was a more difficult process to get to a shared coding of the STIR rubric. In our conversation about the first item on the STIR instrument, Teacher provides an opportunity for learners to engage with a scientifically oriented question, Sage had put an X in the LC box, in which The learner is prompted to formulate own questions or hypothesis to be tested. The researcher had marked an X in the TC box, Teacher provides learners with specific stated (or implied) questions or hypotheses to be investigated. The following is a portion of the discussion we had in trying to make sense of what had happened during the first day, when students were doing a lab on the conditions under which mold grows.
213
MEG (RESEARCHER): That you were…let’s just say, when they were talking about what was going on with the food, you said…the student said “why does mold grow faster on certain food?” Another student said, “why did it have a bad odor?” And so they were asking these questions and you repeated the question, “why did it grow faster on some food” and then you said “well, we have a lot of good questions. What I am going to do is break you up in groups and find the answer to our question why was there mold?” MEG: In a way…it was almost like you said a question that none of them had asked, you know what I mean? So, I wonder what your interpretation of that was? They offered the idea “why does mold grow faster on certain foods and have a bad odor” and then the next thing you said was really a different question. SAGE (TEACHER): While I was writing them on the board, one of [the students] said “why was the mold on the food?” I believe that one of them had said that and I wrote it on the board. MEG: So, it’s your perception that you decided to go ahead and steer people toward that question? SAGE: Yes, I wanted them to do that question. I was directing them towards why does mold grow on food. (a bit later) MEG: Do you again with this interpretation that they [students] all generated questions, but once the question was selected, you pretty much assigned them what they were going to do? SAGE: I would say that I did, yes. In this case, Sage’s students had formulated their own questions. But, after Sage listed all of their questions on the board, she had them investigate her question. This made it tough to figure out how to code what happened in the limited choices of the STIR rubric. The researcher’s original interpretation was that Sage assigned the question, TC on the rubric. Sage felt that the students had generated their own questions, LC on the rubric. For this Item, #1 on the rubric, Sage went with the researcher’s original coding, agreeing that it was in fact her own question that she had steered her students to
214
investigate. On three other questions, the researcher changed her original coding to reflect a better understanding of what had happened, after she and Sage discussed it. A part of this process was a realization of the limitations of the STIR rubric itself. For instance, there were several times when either the researcher or the teacher wanted to put the X on the line in between two options. The rubric was not detailed enough to take into account all the nuances of how inquiry was enacted. But even from the Table 7.11 data, we can see some patterns that are born out from the researcher’s observations. For example, Sage, Max, and Jamilla all have a category marked on the STIR in the “TC” category, teacher centered. Indeed, in classroom observations, these three teachers carried out inquiry in the most teacher centered ways. By observing the No Evidence column, we might guess that Jamilla’s students did not carry on a laboratory investigation. In fact, although her students made observations of plants, they conducted library research.
Discussion and Implications
Question Patterns Differences across teachers overall indicate the following patterns from pre to post program: 1) an increase in the number of student questions; 2) a decrease in the percentage of teacher questions; 3) more questions asked at a higher cognitive level; and 4) an increase in the percentage of noncontent questions asked. This research modeled some of its question analysis on the work of Hofstein, et al. (2005), with an added focus on changes from an RET experience and highlighting the interactions with the teacher. The enormous increase in the number of noncontent, procedural questions showed a pattern of spiking during the experimentation stages of the inquiry model. During this time, the teacher was functioning as gopher or laboratory aid, and many of the student questions focused on seeking materials support for their laboratory investigations. Evidence supports the notion that the lesson, as enacted, shifted the roles of the teacher and the students, particularly during experimentation. However, teachers with more authoritarian classrooms (Max, Sage) or whose students needed more support (Princess’s special education students) tended to exhibit less of a role shift (as indicated in question
215
data) than those with more student centered classrooms. This is similar to findings by Davis and Blanchard (2004) in which a mismatch in teacher and student value structures undermined change. Teachers whose pre program lessons had been more ‘traditional’ (such as Nate) showed greater differences in questions numbers and patterns in post program lessons, now that the lessons were much more inquiry-based. Teachers whose pre program lessons more closely resembled inquiry (such as Charity) exhibited less change in their post program lessons. This research suggests that the changes in enactment are linked to the lesson design itself. Yet it also shows us that the way a teacher operates in their classroom (i.e. authoritarian versus more student centered) mitigates the transfer of the inquiry from the model to the classroom. Therefore, the research experience and the inquiry are funneled through the teachers and what they value (Anderson & Helms, 2001; Gess-Newsome et al., 2003). A close analysis of the question coding in some cases presented what appeared to be misleading results. For instance, let’s consider Charity’s classroom, an inquiry-based lesson both pre and post program on Betta fish behavior. In the pre program lesson, the students asked 55% of the questions and in the post program lesson they asked only 13%. So, what might explain this discrepancy? Well, in looking back at the tapes, I verified that the teacher is being asked less questions by the students because the students are asking one another questions. These data compute the interactions between the teacher and the students, but out of context they tell only a part of the story. In this case, what appears to be less student questions actually indicates more student autonomy and a classroom that appears to be more inquiry-based. Clearly, looking at the questions out of the context of the classroom can be misleading. Therefore, I suggest that numbers cannot tell the story of the inquiry in the classrooms, but rather act to corroborate observational evidence. Perhaps the question analysis ought to best function as supporting evidence of inquiry rather than as primary evidence. Certainly, taken in context, the question analysis indicates some useful changes in the teachers’ practices. But these data also can be misinterpreted without the
216
classroom observation data. Therefore, an implication is that enactment must be understood in the context of the teacher’s classroom (Crawford, 2000; Osborne, 1998). Thus, this study shows that question analysis is a valuable way of documenting enactment of inquiry, with the caveat that it take place with attention to contextual clues.
Lesson Length and Components Post program lessons averaged three days longer than pre program lessons. Post program lessons also included more phases than they had pre program; for example, a presentation phase, which had been generally lacking pre program was present post program in most teachers’ classrooms. Post program, teachers enacted inquiry in a lengthier, multiple-staged manner. Involving teachers in extended professional development experiences appears to encourage the teachers to expand the timeframes of the classroom inquiry they enact (Davis & Helly, 2004; Marx, et al., 2004).
STIR Instrument Negotiations about STIR ratings helped both the teachers and the researcher gain a greater understanding of teachers’ enactment of inquiry, as it had done in Bodzin & Beeer’s (2003) work. Indeed, the STIR instrument itself acted as a reflective tool, helped teacher focus on evaluating their roles through discussion with the researcher. It seemed that more teacher centered a lesson was, the more often the teacher’s assessment of their enactment of inquiry disagreed with the researchers’ and the harder it was to negotiate a compromise. Indeed, results from this rubric suggest that, as valuable as it was to have the conversations with teachers about the STIR instruments, it may be the more important to illustrate both the teachers’ and researchers’ initial rankings as well. This suggests that follow-up is key to teachers understanding what had actually occurred in the post program lesson, further evidence of a lesson learned in Davis and Helly’s (2004) work. The inquiry stage on the STIR instrument of connecting the investigation to the literature was not modeled in the MET program and did not occur in any of the classrooms, with the exception of Jamilla’s students’ library research on plants. Therefore, I recommend that an RET model what it wants teachers to take back to the classroom. On the other hand, the MET model was so strong that teachers were taking on
217
some (perhaps less desirable) program nuances, such as providing the research question when the students did not come up with the teacher they intended. That is what had happened in the first MET investigation with the scientists, and therefore the teachers felt justified in doing the same with their students. This research strengthens the argument in other literature (Davis & Helly, 2004; Luft, 2001) that reflection is a critical component of teachers’ understanding their enactment, an outside person ought to be employed.
218
CHAPTER EIGHT DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Introduction
[W]hat is important to recognize is that reform takes time, it takes sustained effort, it takes the goal of better understanding our classrooms and our teaching. Perhaps this last is the most important characteristic: Profound professional development has to allow a teacher to understand her/his classrooms—meaning those experiences have to be applicable to the classroom (Southerland, Rose, & Blanchard, in review).
This dissertation began with five main research questions. As I examined the first three questions, and in the course of developing research papers from this dissertation study, related questions emerged. The four findings chapters (Four, Five, Six, and Seven), address the first three main questions in this dissertation: What are the MET Program’s principal investigators’ conceptions of inquiry-based science and their goals for the teachers in the MET program?; How have teachers changed in their conceptions of inquiry-based science teaching following their participation in MET Program?; and How have teachers changed in their enactment of inquiry-based science teaching following their participation in MET Program? Implicit in those chapters and in the data analyzed for this dissertation are the fourth and fifth research questions, What factors supported or constrained the teachers’ ability to carry out inquiry-based instruction?; and What implications do these findings have for other teacher research or enhancement program? Unlike answering the earlier research questions, these questions draw upon the findings described in earlier chapters. Indeed, there are not discreet data that answer these questions, but rather, understanding underlying factors requires surveying the findings in the overall study and in some senses “reading between the lines” to infer them. It is in this chapter that I make these factors explicit. 219
Therefore, I begin Chapter Eight by describing the underlying factors that constrained or supported teachers’ ability to carry out inquiry-based instruction. I then discuss the implications of my study in terms of what they suggest for reform through RETs and other professional development, research and pedagogy in science education, and theory. Next, I critique the theoretical frameworks I employed, testing the boundaries of these theories and considering their usefulness. I then discuss the limitations of my study. Finally, I recommend further studies that continue the work of this dissertation research.
Factors in the Literature
Dilemmas of teachers trying to implement reform are discussed and documented in the literature (e.g., Abrams & Southerland, in progress; Anderson & Helms, 2001; Keys & Bryan, 2001; McRobbie & Tobin, 1995; van Zee, 2001; Yore, 2003). Some of these issues relate to time constraints, changes in roles, obtaining supplies, the need to “cover” content, and pedagogical content knowledge, to name but a few. Nate and Charity, two teachers who were test cases for this dissertation research, perceived lack of time as an important impediment to their teaching inquiry (Blanchard et al., 2005). This study also identified content knowledge, confidence, and adequate supervision of students as impediments to these teachers’ ability to carry out inquiry. Additionally, Davis and Helly (2004) describe how four elementary teachers from the 2003 cohort of the MET program struggled without the supportive and reflective feedback of the MET program staff to implement inquiry-based changes back in their classrooms. Originally, I planned to discuss these underlying factors from the perspective of internal and external factors that influenced the enactment of inquiry. I conceptualized them this way given Wilber’s (1995) AQAL theoretical framework, which undergirds the Integral Spiral Dynamics (Beck & Cowan, 1996; Wilber, 2000) theoretical lens of this study. Examples of internal factors include teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge, values and beliefs, content knowledge, developmental levels, and views of science. Some of the external factors are time, materials, school structure, and administrative support. All of these aspects are important (e.g., Muire, 1997; Roehrig & Luft, 2004),
220
and all of them played a role for teachers in this study. But, as I analyzed data and wrote up my chapters, my findings, their implications and thus the factors that supported or constrained inquiry led to my describing them in terms of the program and its PIs, the teachers, and their contexts (Erlandson et al., 1993; Wolcott, 2001). That is, the findings were linked to the concrete experiences of the teachers as they connected to the program and the participants’ knowledge, for instance. Therefore, in the following sections, I describe the underlying factors that supported or constrained teachers’ enactment related to: 1) The program PIs conceptions and goals of inquiry; 2) The MET program structure; 3) Alignment of teachers’ goals, values, and knowledge; and 4) Contextual issues.
Factors Supporting Inquiry-Based Science Teaching
The Program PIs’ Conceptions and Goals The program PIs’ conceptions and goals for the MET program ultimately supported the teachers’ ability to carry out inquiry. As designers of the program, both Kathleen and Cap demonstrated they valued the teachers and the teachers’ role in making a difference in science teaching in their classrooms. Cap and Kathleen believed they would best serve teacher and classroom change by helping the teachers gain an understanding of authentic science (e.g., Chinn & Malhotra, 2002; Rahm et al., 2003), introducing teachers to useful skills and giving them practice carrying out research. Additionally, Kathleen and Cap learned from the first year of the program that reflection required a special focus in order to facilitate the teachers’ learning in ways that would translate to their lessons and their practices (Dutrow, 2005). This clearly resonates with what others have found about the value of reflection in teacher development experiences (e.g., Borko, 2004; Helly, 2002; Luft, 2001). In Chapter Four, we learned that Cap and Kathleen shared the view that inquiry occurs along a continuum, with levels of sophistication growing as experiences and skills grow. This corresponds with descriptions of inquiry in the NSES Standards and the literature (Harwood et al., 2002; NRC, 1996; Schwartz & Lederman, 2004, 2005; Settlage, in review). The PIs’ awareness of teachers’ lack of background knowledge and research experiences meant that they did not expect the teachers to come into the program
221
with content knowledge in marine ecology (see Chapter Four). Instead, Kathleen and Cap designed the program to match their conceptions of inquiry as a process, to be acquired according to the level of sophistication of the teacher. This led to the program beginning with an initial, more supported group research project, followed by a second, more open-ended project. MET program staff provided support as appropriate in content expertise (Dutrow, 2005). Chapter Five data support the claim that the teachers in this study understood the program model, its stages, and its vocabulary, thus confirming the PIs’ goals and conceptions as supportive of inquiry. Therefore, the PIs’ views of inquiry and thus their goals for the program were important, for they guided the development of the MET program, through which the teachers would gain a host of experiences. These experiences include exposure to inquiry-based research experiences, and gaining marine content knowledge, useful laboratory techniques and skills, and reflective practice experiences.
The MET Program Structure The MET program had numerous structural elements that supported teachers’ ability to carry out inquiry. One goal of MET was to give its participants what Windschitl (2004) calls a “functional model” of what it means to “do science” (p. 482). Although it was a RET, the program was unique from more traditional RETs in several ways (e.g., Borko, 2004; Dixon et al., 2005). One of the unique aspects of the MET program was the active reflection component which required teachers to reflect on the program itself, to create a template of this model in terms of the roles of the teacher and the learner, and to apply the model to a specific lesson (Dutrow, 2005).
Reflection The use of reflection has been shown to assist teachers in understanding their practice and in understanding professional development experiences (e.g., Davis & Helly, 2004; Helly, 2002; Luft, 2001; Schön, 1987). Reflection was employed in multiple ways for this program. Prior to the program, teachers audiotaped or videotaped an inquiry lesson and completed a questionnaire as a means of reflecting on how their lesson incorporated inquiry, as well as ways that it did not. This process increased the teachers’
222
reflection on the lesson they taught (see Chapter Five). Indeed, research supports the use of such records of classroom practice as “powerful tools for facilitating teacher change” (Borko, 2004, p.7). Another way the MET program employed reflection was for teachers to reflect on the program as it unfolded in stages. Specifically, “teacher hat” sessions were led by the educational staff as a means of studying what Cap, the scientist or “lead learner” in the program did, and what the teachers, as the “learners” did after each stage or set of stages of the program as modeled (Dutrow, 2005). In these sessions, the teachers reflected on the pedagogical meanings of what they had done, and what Cap had done. Teachers then described the inquiry modeled in terms of stages in their laboratory notebooks as a way to clarify the entire inquiry process, particularly to understand the roles of the lead learner (Cap) and the learners (themselves). These reflective exercises increased teachers’ thinking about the program model, increased their understanding of the model, and therefore served to support both conceptions and enactment of inquiry in their classrooms (see Chapters Five and Seven for supporting data).
Prior Content Knowledge In accordance with the PIs’ conceptions and goals for the program, the MET program did not require the teacher participants to have previous background knowledge of marine ecology. Nor was the program designed with the expectation that teachers had had previous experiences with inquiry, given that the underlying rationale for the grant proposal was to provide these very experiences (Granger & Herrnkind, 1999). Low level expectations of content background knowledge, coupled with a focus on making the participants feel “safe” encouraged all teachers to participate fully in the field-based experiences of the MET program (Covey, 1989; Dutrow, 2005). This enhanced teachers’ learning, thereby supporting their ability to carry out inquiry.
Scientific Inquiry Experiences The MET program was unique in other ways. In the program, teachers designed their own studies based upon questions they generated from marine organism observations and gave Power Point presentations of their findings using a “scientific”
223
presentation format after each research project. Additionally, Cap invited teachers to review published journal articles featuring slightly more sophisticated versions of their marine research (Dutrow, 2005). Indeed, these MET program experiences functioned as reminders of the “real” nature of their research and aligned with “authentic” and “collaborative” inquiry, corresponding to Schwab’s Level 3 inquiry (e.g., Crawford, 2000; Rahm et al., 2003; Sandoval & Reiser, 2004; Settlage & Southerland, in review). Unlike a more traditional RET model of perhaps working alongside a scientist in a laboratory (e.g., Chinn & Malhotra, 2002; O’Neill and Polman, 2004) or a research experience with much less of a focus on the direct application of the knowledge to the classroom. In this model, teachers had a more active role in creating the inquiry in which they engaged. These experiences assisted these teachers in understanding the inquiry modeled in the MET program, which supported them in translating their learning to their classroom.
Post Program Lesson Development The lesson each teacher created in the program was able to be implemented “as is” into the teacher’s curriculum. Nine of the ten teachers in this study taught the lesson they developed in the MET program. Indeed, eight of these lessons were different from the teachers’ pre program lessons, indicating the importance of the last week of the program, when teachers developed the lesson, received feedback, and revised it. During their post program teaching, many of the teachers referred directly to the notes and materials they had created during the lesson, thus demonstrating that the lesson itself assisted teachers in implementing inquiry-based teaching. Research in the literature supports the practice of teachers crafting their lessons as a way to help them change their practices (Marx et al., 2004; Parke & Coble, 1997; Rahm et al., 2003; Roehrig & Luft, 2004).
Long Engagement The MET program had a long engagement, which is suggested as a necessity as teachers work to change their practices (Gess-Newsome et al., 2003; Keys & Bryan, 2001). Engagement began with the pre program lesson and questionnaire, continued with
224
five weeks of intensive engagement, and concluded with the post program lesson and questionnaire, which counted as the sixth week of the RET. Therefore, these teachers were engaged in thinking about inquiry during the program, but this engagement also extended over the months preceding and following the program. The program model was understood by these teachers, as evidenced in several ways: Teachers’ lessons mirrored the inquiry process; teachers’ writing and enactment reflected the vocabulary of the program, the critical role of questions, and alternate conceptions of assessment; and teachers’ written conceptions of inquiry shifted to more learner centered. Thus, the findings reported in Chapters Five and Seven indicate that this extended program engagement supported change on the part of the teachers, both in terms of their conceptions and enactment of inquiry.
Alignment of Teachers’ Value Structures, Goals, and Knowledge Alignment of Teacher Value Structures In the theoretical frame of this study, teachers’ values and beliefs lead to conscious choices in classroom behavior (Kegan, 1994). One useful way to highlight these underlying values is through analysis of critical incidents (Crawford, 2000; Johnston & Southerland, in review; Nott & Wellington, 1995). During follow-up interviews, critical incidents were used to highlight episodes during which teachers made decisions “on the fly.” Reflecting on the teacher’s responses during these incidents helped both the researcher and the teachers to examine underlying values (see Chapter Six for more details). This allowed teachers to reflect not only on their values, but on whether they wished to reexamine them. I argue that teachers who valued the independent, rationalistic model of inquiry found the inquiry as modeled a “good fit,” easing their adoption of the inquiry into their practices (see Chapters Six and Seven). A match in teacher beliefs, values, and curriculum materials has been found to assist teachers in changing their practices (Davis & Blanchard, 2004; Harwood, et al., 2002; Leu, 2005; Southerland et al., 2003). Therefore, teachers’ value structures compatible with those of the MET program helped to support inquiry in these teachers’ classrooms. (Teachers whose value structures were misaligned with the program are discussed in this section under constraints.)
225
Alignment of Goals Teachers came to the MET program with a variety of goals for the program and a set of goals for their teaching. These goals were described in the teachers’ questionnaires and further illuminated to both the researcher and the teachers through discussions and the post program interviews (see Chapters Six and Seven). Some of the teachers had goals that included seeking new materials for their classrooms, pursuing new challenges for themselves, encouraging students to develop critical thinking skills, and “doing more science” in their classrooms. These goals and others that were in alignment with the program supported the teachers using inquiry back in the classroom (Beck & Cowan, 1996; Tobias, 1992). (Those teachers whose goals were misaligned to the program are discussed in the constraints section.)
Teachers’ Knowledge Two teacher participants (Nate and Charity) in the MET program had strong content knowledge in marine science. Content knowledge has been argued in the literature to be critical for teaching in inquiry-based ways (AAAS, 1993; Gallagher & Parker, 1995; Gess-Newsome et al., 2003; Olson, in review; Richardson, 2003; Woodbury & Gess-Newsome, 2002). These teachers had taught marine science in settings that emphasized asking questions, and thus these teachers also had strong pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1986) of what would likely happen, when they conducted their inquiry-based lesson back in the classroom (Blanchard et al., 2005). Other teachers in the study had strong content knowledge in the subject areas on which they centered their inquiry-based lessons (Rogue, Nate, Kaitlin, Charity, Sherilyn, Michael, Jamilla). Although they may not have known what students would ask or how the lessons would “play out” in their own classrooms, these teachers were comfortable enough with the material to have a reasonable level of confidence when enacting the lesson (see Chapter Seven for enactment data). Two other teachers (Kaitlin and Michael) had levels of theoretical sophistication resulting from recent learning in a graduate level science education course. Thus, these teachers were able to construe the model of the program as a form of pedagogy to which
226
they might adapt other components of their teaching (Blanchard & Southerland, 2006). Indeed, Crawford (2003) describes inquiry at the high school level as both a content and a pedagogy. In all of these ways, the teachers’ content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and theoretical knowledge acted in support of their enactment of inquiry in their classrooms. (Teachers with insufficient knowledge are discussed in the constraints section.)
Contextual Issues All of the teachers returned to their classrooms and taught their lessons. Student characteristics did not determine whether teachers embraced inquiry. Rather, what seemed the case was that certain teachers dismissed the idea that they “could not do inquiry” on account of their students. Therefore, it was not so much the culture of the schools or the impediments themselves that supported (or constrained) inquiry in this case, but rather the teachers’ perceptions that they did, and these teachers’ reluctance to use contextual constraints as a reason not to do inquiry. This was particularly true for Michael, Kaitlin, and Princess, who paradoxically had the most obvious contextual constraints when considering their student populations, few available supplies, and for two of these teachers, sub-par school laboratory facilities. For some of the teachers (Nate, Kaitlin, Charity, Rogue) organizing the materials for the laboratory took planning and time, but was considered simply a part of the process of doing a laboratory activity. Additionally, each of these teachers felt the administration supported their efforts to the extent that they would likely be pleased were they to walk into the room during the lesson. In Rogue’s case, the county’s superintendent of schools came into her room to see what she was doing, as part of his regular rotation. He quietly told me that he considered Rogue to be an exceptional teacher and an asset to the county, and he mentioned his pleasure that she was seeking National Board Certification, indicating support for her and inquiry-based instruction in her classroom. Therefore, administrative support was more important than student characteristics in embracing inquiry in the classroom. This is supported in the literature (Gess-Newsome, et al., 2003). In Chapter Six, I discuss the role sophisticated understandings of theory played in how Kaitlin and Michael embraced inquiry throughout their classroom practices. Indeed,
227
an argument can be made that teachers with more sophisticated theoretical understandings are able to mitigate contextual issues in support of inquiry enactment (Blanchard & Southerland, 2006).
Factors Constraining Inquiry-Based Science Teaching
Program PIs Conceptions and Goals It is important to note that the program PIs admittedly were not teachers of science in grades Kindergarten through 12, nor did they present themselves as such. Kathleen had regular contact in classrooms through her teacher outreach program, and she and Cap had designed an award-winning marine program for elementary and middle school students. Neither PI claimed to be an expert in educational practices, particularly at elementary and secondary levels. Kathleen’s and Cap’s inability to handle specific application type questions by teachers of these grades regarding implementing inquiry in their classrooms might be described as a lack of pedagogical content knowledge. Recognizing this lack, the program PIs added an educational staff member to coordinate the grant, and after the first year, they added a second educational staff member to assist with reflective practice techniques, teachers’ lesson plans, and related tasks (Dutrow, 2005). These two staff members were hired to provide this missing pedagogical component to the program. However, during my program observations, it became clear that the teachers were thinking in very concrete ways about the program and how they might apply it to their teaching. Chapter Five data clearly support that teachers’ thinking was strongly embedded in their practices in the classroom, and Chapter Four details the lack of overlap in the program PIs’ conceptions of inquiry and those of the teachers. Therefore, even though the intention was for the educational staff to handle the teachers’ concerns about “how will this work in my classroom?” type questions, my observations and field notes indicate that the MET program staff were not able to respond in ways that fully satisfied the teachers. This was shown to be an issue for the teachers in the Davis and Helly (2004) study, as two of the four teachers struggled considerably in carrying out their inquiry-based lessons, given their lack of pedagogical content knowledge.
228
No one could provide satisfactory answers to questions teachers asked about specific, future classroom situations. Teachers, however, continued to desire this information, as has been noted in other studies (Meadows, in review; Roehrig & Luft, 2004). For teachers lacking in pedagogical content knowledge, the inability of the program staff to provide it constrained these teachers’ enactment of inquiry in the classroom.
MET Program Structure The MET program inadvertently constrained the enactment of inquiry in the classroom in several ways. The first was the model of inquiry that was presented. The program model was at Schwab’s Level 3 inquiry (Settlage & Southerland, in review). In terms of an inquiry continuum of the NSES (NRC, 2000), the program was fairly openended. The program model was presented so thoroughly, in all of its stages, and reflected upon so completely as to perhaps present itself as the model of inquiry rather than a model. That is, teachers with naive conceptions of inquiry saw and understood the model and modeled their classroom lesson on it. The strong presentation of the model failed to help the teachers recognize that inquiry could happen in more structured ways, in less time, with fewer materials, and in various other iterations. In its strength, the program unintentionally played on the inability of these teachers to know that inquiry could be anything but the single portrait that they experienced. It might be argued that the program staff, sophisticated in their views of inquiry, understood the program to be one stop along a continuum, and that this simply could not be conveyed to teachers with naïve conceptions of inquiry. What comes across in the teachers’ conceptions of the program is that this model was inquiry, with its shortcomings as well as its strengths. The inability of the teachers to see inquiry as anything other than a time-intensive, multi-staged, open-ended process acted to constrain its enactment in the classroom. Teachers talked about this description of inquiry during follow-up interviews, as an explanation for why they were unable to continue teaching with inquiry. Teachers (Jamilla, Sage, Sherilyn, Max) said they simply could not devote the amount of time necessary to carry out inquiry as modeled. Indeed, time was the main constraint mentioned by teachers. If, in fact, the teachers could envision shorter, alternate versions
229
of inquiry, perhaps they would be more inclined to make it a mainstay in their classrooms.
Insufficient Connections to other Models Indeed, teachers lacked images of inquiry beyond the marine laboratory experiences. In the program year 2004, Kathleen and another program staff member came down for an additional half day of Great Explorations in Math and Science workshops to add other, more structured and less intensive inquiry experience for the teachers. Yet this attempt still was not enough for teachers at this level of development with inquiry to obtain alternate conceptions. Additionally, although the NSES (NRC, 2000) describes inquiry using descriptions of actual classrooms to illustrate different kinds of enactment, the program did not select to have teachers read from this or other materials, which could have provided other images of inquiry (Anderson, 2003). That is, the program did not emphasize materials that could have expanded teachers’ notions of inquiry beyond the program model. This focus may have allowed teachers to fully understand this particular approach to inquiry, but it also may have acted to constrain the teachers’ enactment of inquiry.
Insufficient Connections to the Classroom The teachers were able to understand the program model, and the reflective sessions helped immensely in this process (see Chapter Five). But the teachers’ reflection focused on understanding the program and then how the teacher’s lesson matched the model, but not the next step of how the model would work in the classroom. Thus, the program staff arranged for the teachers to do a “trial run” of the lesson while still in the last week of the program. In this trial lesson, teachers came with some of their teaching materials and “tried out” the beginning of their planned inquiry lesson with a group of teachers and program staff, “often talking through” what they planned to do back in the classroom. Yet, despite this attempt by the program, when teachers returned to the classroom, they all made some changes in their lessons, changes that seemed necessary back in the context of their schools. Many teachers struggled with enactment.
230
Thus, lack of connection from the laboratory model to the classroom constrained teachers’ enactment of inquiry.
Misalignment of Teachers’ Value Structures, Goals, and Knowledge Misalignment of Teacher Value Structures Teachers who transmit science knowledge and act as traditional teachers display an Authoritarian model of teaching (Roehrig & Luft, 2004). Teachers who acted primarily at the Authoritarian value structure level (Sage, Max) of Beck & Cowan’s (1996) model were unable to allow students to work independently, retained control of the classroom through questions and teacher talk, gave many instructions, and otherwise kept themselves in the center of the learning that occurred in the classroom (see Chapter Seven for data). The literature describes that teachers with authoritarian values are less likely to change with professional development experiences (Leu, 2005; Roehrig & Luft, 2004). Teachers who operated primarily at an Authoritarian value structure level acted in ways that were not aligned with inquiry-based teaching. Therefore, these teachers’ Authoritarian value structures constrained their ability to carry out inquiry in the classroom.
Misalignment of Goals Most of the teachers in this study focused on teaching science as a product rather than science as a process, a long discussed dichotomy in teaching science (Wellington & Osborne, 2001). Focusing on the products of science in teaching has been found to lead to superficial learning of content (Hammer, 1994, and Linn & Songer, 1993, as cited in Sandoval & Reiser, 2004). Instead, a major goal of the MET program was to teach scientific inquiry as a process (see Chapter Four). This more theoretical or overarching approach was not aligned with some of the teachers’ “But what do I say if they ask me a question I don’t know?” focus on the moment-to-moment, concrete aspects of classroom teaching and their lived experiences in the classroom (Osborne, 1998; van Manen, 1990). For many of the MET program teachers, content coverage remained the major goal of classroom teaching, matching descriptions in the literature of secondary science teaching (e.g., McRobbie & Tobin, 1995). Some of the teachers were embedded in the
231
practical issues of classroom teaching such as covering content for standardized tests (Sherilyn, Sage, Charity). Additionally, some teachers (Max, Sherilyn, Jamilla, Rogue, Sage) wanted to “look good” as teachers, as would be exemplified through such things as a quiet, orderly classroom, being able to answer all the students’ questions, and attention to safety. The literature describes how teachers who are seeking to reform their teaching often initially have disorder as they try to implement innovative strategies (Blanchard, 1999; Shymansky, Yore, & Anderson, as cited in Yore, 2003). Thus, for the teachers who focused on goals such as content coverage and order over “trying a new reform measure that your students may really like and learn from” constrained their enactment of inquiry-based science in their classrooms.
Insufficient Teacher Knowledge For teachers with no prior knowledge of inquiry, the program model provided one. Teachers with this limited experience learned the program as a form of content knowledge: the MET program showed them what inquiry was. As Jamilla said in her post program interview, “Now I know what inquiry is!” Teachers for whom inquiry was a new term and a new experience tended to adopt the program in ways that suggested they had internalized it in a very concrete, literal way (see Chapter Five for examples of teachers’ conceptions, and Chapter Six for descriptions of how inquiry was enacted in some classrooms). This is consistent with research findings of both preservice and practicing teachers who are new to inquiry (Crawford, 1999; Luft, 2001; Roehrig & Luft, 2004). Teachers whose pre program lesson least resembled inquiry (Sage, Max, Sherilyn, Jamilla) were least likely to understand what it was, with the notable exception of Nate (who had taught a lesson of convenience pre program). Teachers tended to select material for their inquiry lessons with which they were familiar, so the issue of lack of content knowledge for the content covered in their lessons was minimized. Those who lacked pedagogical content knowledge (particularly Max, Princess, Sherilyn, Sage) worried about how to field the students’ questions and this created a struggle for them in enactment. Thus, a lack of content knowledge of inquiry and lack of pedagogical content knowledge in enacting inquiry constrained enactment in these teachers’ classrooms.
232
Contextual Issues The MET program took place at a university’s marine laboratory. The context of the laboratory was different from the teachers’ classrooms in many ways: lack of students, no bell schedule, ample materials, access to the outdoor research environment, boats, support staff and scientists, informal dress, and many others. Additionally, in the laboratory setting, the teachers were in the role of students, and back in the classroom that shifted. The transition back to the classroom was difficult for some of the teachers in terms of obtaining laboratory materials (Michael), administrative support (Jamilla), content support (Princess, Sage), making the time to plan for the lesson by scheduling it, videotaping it for the MET program (Sherilyn, Sage, Rogue, Jamilla), adapting the lesson for classroom use (Nate, Charity), and then using the number of class days necessary to carry it out (Rogue, Nate, Michael, Jamilla). Additionally, the timing of the classroom involved carrying the lesson across many days, sometimes awkwardly ending the laboratory due to the bell ringing, which clearly had not been an issue at the marine laboratory. For some of these teachers, the lesson was one more “thing” to fit into a busy calendar year of coursework, particularly evidenced by Michael and Max putting off their lessons until the last two weeks of school nearly a full year later. For all of the teachers, in various ways, contextual issues constrained their enactment of inquiry in the classroom.
Discussion and Implications
This dissertation study was borne of a need for more studies of inquiry as it is enacted in real world science classrooms (e.g., Crawford, 2000; Davis & Helly, 2004; Osborne, 1998). Reform literature has cited the need for follow-up after professional development programs (Borko, 2004; Fretchtling et al., 1995). This study was a departure from others in the literature in that it took place in secondary science teachers’ classrooms, analyzed pre and post program conceptions and enactment of inquiry, and studied ten teachers rather than the typical one to four teachers (e.g., Bencze & Hodson,
233
1999; Crawford, 2000; Feldman, 2000; Kelly et al., 2000; Meadows, in review; O’Neil & Polman, 2004; Park & Coble, 1997). Data collection and member checking for this study were conducted over two years, and therefore I, the researcher, was able to create sustained relationships with the teacher stakeholders, as recommended in the literature (e.g. Erlandson et al., 1993; GessNewsome et al., 2003, Marx et al., 2004; van Manen, 1990). Additionally, this study involved a critical analysis of the teachers’ enactment of inquiry, a goal of high quality professional development programs (Borko, 2004; Granger & Herrnkind, 1999). The main theoretical lenses of this study, Integral Spiral Dynamics (Beck & Cowan, 1996; Wilber, 2000) and Kegan’s Developmental Model (1994), focused on the individual teacher as the main agent of change. In light of recent literature, it was argued that teachers’ personal changes would likely determine the changes in the classroom teaching (e.g., Anderson & Helms, 2001; Feldman, 2000; Gess-Newsome et al., 2003). The implications of this study fall to three arenas: What does this study tells us about reform through RETs and other professional development?; How does this study inform research and pedagogy in science education?; and What do the findings imply at the theoretical level?
Reform through RETs and other Professional Development
[D]iscussions that support critical examination of teaching are relatively rare. Such conversations must occur, however, if teachers are to collectively explore ways of improving their teaching and support one another as they work to transform their practice. To foster such discussions, professional development leaders must help teachers establish trust, develop communication norms that enable critical dialogue, and maintain a balance between respecting individual community members and critically analyzing issues in their teaching (Borko, 2004, p. 5).
What do the findings of this study of ten secondary science teachers implementing inquiry in their classrooms imply for RETs and other professional development programs
234
for teachers? For a RET to provide useful research experiences for its participants, those who plan the program must be masterful “bridge builders.” These bridges must be constructed to connect the language of the program and that of the teachers, to connect teachers’ research experiences to teachers’ classroom experiences, and to connect the teacher-as-learner back to learner-as-teacher. Indeed, the teacher will be learning a whole new set of pedagogical content skills in her/his new role as teacher of inquiry (van Zee, 2000). Additionally, bridges must be constructed to follow the teachers back to their classrooms (with self-reflective exercises to highlight teachers’ enactment and prior to teachers’ arrival at the program) to theoretically “prime” them for what they will learn.) A framework that highlighted what proved to be a series of difficult contextual shifts at every stage of the RET was Osborne’s (1998) framework, in which the knowledge of an individual is changed when the context changes. Attempts to foreground and reduce these contextual changes would serve to ease the teachers’ assimilation of inquiry-based practices into their classrooms. Another underlying theoretical frame of this study was the role of value structures (Beck & Cowan, 1996; Wilber, 2000). Indeed through this lens one can see the importance of the program PIs valuing of teachers and classroom inquiry, how critically teachers’ values influenced whether they were able to assimilate or transform their practices. Assimilation of aspects of inquiry into what the teacher already knows and is able to do in the classroom is possible when the teacher’s values fail to match those of the program, but transformation of what a teacher understands and how the teacher enacts inquiry requires that teachers’ values align with the values of the professional development offered. Research by Roehrig and Luft (2004) and Anderson (2002) highlight the role of teachers’ values on teacher change.
Research and Pedagogy in Science Education
…[F]or change to happen, one must go beyond “reflection” on such matters, to consider the theories and philosophies that are embedded in one’s habits of thought and action (Davis et al., 2000, p. 43).
235
What are the implications of this study for research and pedagogy in science education? Reflective practices hold promise not only for teachers understanding the RET program model, but, though critical incident analysis (Crawford, 2000; Nott & Wellington, 1995), reflection can be used to illuminate teachers’ underlying values and how they impact teachers’ enactment of inquiry. Teachers who show values consistent with Rationalistic or Egalitarian value structures are better candidates to implement inquiry than those operating out of an authoritarian model. Another purpose for reflection is to gain an understanding of actions, in this case teachers’ enactment of inquiry in the classroom. Although it seems counterintuitive, teachers need reflection to clarify their actions in the classroom. It may be because these actions are typically so rote that they are not conscious to the teacher. Yet, when implementing reform measures, teachers need a tool to reflect on what they have done. The STIR (Bodzin & Beerer, 2003) instrument provided both teachers and the researcher with a tool for reflecting on and understanding teachers’ classroom enactment of inquiry. The use of the STIR instrument was expanded to include negotiation with the researcher. Curriculum materials carefully crafted seem appropriate to follow a reflective analysis of an inquiry-based program model. Such materials could assist in making teachers’ roles more supportive and less authoritarian, though the structure of the lessons themselves. This can lead to teachers being more fully able to implement inquiry in their classrooms and a way to increase higher order questions and potentially, student learning. Additionally, theoretical readings that help teachers connect to the broader literature base on inquiry and reform will help teachers develop more sophisticated understandings of inquiry and enable teachers to see inquiry in more theoretical ways instead of more concrete terms, such as a particular lessons. The findings of the study must be understood within the context of the observed classrooms. The presence of the researcher in the classroom altered the context, and perhaps assisted teachers in recalling aspects of the MET program.
Theoretical Implications In the study I describe teachers who were able to assimilate this knowledge of inquiry into what they already knew and were able and willing to do in the classroom. I
236
also describe teachers who transformed their knowledge and approaches in the classroom. Consistent with Piagetian theory, assimilation did not lead to transformation. Better assimilation of the information on inquiry-based programs and a better ability to teach using inquiry-based teaching methods did not necessarily lead to transformational changes in how the teacher thought about and reorganized his/her practice. What this study adds to the literature is a close investigation of the factors that shape a teacher’s response to such an experience, and what pushes them toward assimilation or transformation. This study found that teachers with compatible values and goals and theoretical sophistication all moved teachers toward transformational change.
An Analysis of the Theoretical Frames of this Study
Integral Spiral Dynamics One of the functions of research is not only to apply a theoretical frame, but to test the boundaries of a theory’s utility. Integral Spiral Dynamics (Beck & Cowan, 1996; Wilber, 2000) is one of the theoretical frames of this research. In my study, I used this frame as a way to categorize teachers’ actions in terms of Value Structure levels, as a way to better understand and frame the teachers’ actions in the classrooms, and to see differences in how the teachers operated in their classrooms. According to this theory, individuals evolve up the spiral through levels of development, always passing through the same set of stages in the same order. An individual who has developed past certain levels my still operate in prior levels, as all levels include and transcend those that precede them. Integral Spiral Dynamics was a useful framework in helping me sort out and classify the different ways teachers selected to operate in the classroom. Yet, as I looked back over the data I had analyzed and the ways I thought about the teachers, I realized that most of the teachers had operated at several levels of the spiral, sometimes even within the same class period. According to the theory, an individual operates 50% of the time in the current value structure level and this is their “center of gravity” (Wilber, 2000). Therefore, those at a rationalistic level will operate about half of the time at that
237
level, but also will operate about 25% of the time at the previous level (Authoritarian) and about 25% of the time at the level beyond (Egalitarian). However, in Integral Spiral Dynamics, individuals who are at the Egalitarian level or below are judgmental of themselves and others when they operate at a level below the level that constitutes their center of gravity. Therefore, if Kaitlin’s center of gravity is at a Rationalistic level, then according to the theory, when she is operating at an Authoritarian level and assuming she is aware of her actions, she would not be pleased with herself. Yet, I did not find this to be the case. Indeed, Kaitlin is an accomplished teacher who worked in a context that favored, to some extent, the tough “Momma” talk that she periodically infused in her classroom interaction with students, as well as actions on her part to empower her students. Kaitlin readily acknowledged all the roles she took on, calling herself an “interesting mix” and not apologizing for or giving any indication she preferred to discontinue any of her actions. I would say that Kaitlin found her actions to be appropriate and useful for working well with her students. One could argue that Kaitlin was at Integral Spiral Dynamic’s “second tier,” in which individuals are able to move between lower levels and suspend judgment (Wilber, 2000). But what if we discuss a different teacher, for example, Nate? Nate primarily operated at a Rationalistic level, expecting his students to work independently and was very comfortable using an inquiry-based approach. But he also drank a diet coke all class period long while a large sign behind him declared “No Drinks Allowed.” He saw himself as the teacher, with privileges of a professional and an adult, and aside from the inquiry, was very much tied to content coverage and a delivery mode of teaching, what I would code as acting at the Authoritarian level. Nate made no apologies for his positions or his actions, of which he was clearly aware. If I locate Nate’s center of gravity at Rationalistic level, then Nate perhaps would have been disappointed in himself or seeing these actions as inconsistent with his values, which he did not. On the other hand, one could argue that the teachers, for example, Kaitlin, were not fully aware of the inconsistencies in their values, not seeing, for instance a conflict between operating in an absolute, Authoritarian way in terms of no late work and no hall passes, yet on the other embracing practices to honor the individual students and encourage them to think and access and use their talents to succeed in life.
238
A third argument is that these seeming conflicts are not so, rather there are many development strands at work in a teacher’s classroom, just one of which is “classroom management” and another is “instruction.” In that case, what appears to be the teacher operating in different value structures is only true across multiple strands of development, but not within strands. That is, Kaitlin and Nate could primarily operate at Authoritarian value structure levels in the “classroom management” strand, and simultaneously operate at the Rationalistic level when it comes to “instruction” and perhaps even operate at a third strand, we’ll say at an Egalitarian level in situations related to “students’ personal goals” or some related strand, when it comes to considering the students’ personal growth. So how can I still employ Integral Spiral Dynamics while accommodating these and other instances in which I perceive there are some flaws in the theory’s utility when applied to real world teachers? Certainly, ascribing different strands to the ways the teachers in my study were linked to value structures is viable. But another way I have been thinking about stretching the boundaries of Integral Spiral Dynamics is in terms of enacting or taking on value structures. This process is consistent with poststructural notions of identity in which identity is fluid, and enacted differently within different contexts (Sowell, 2004; Sowell et al., 2006). Teachers in this study were found to adopt different values in different contexts. According to Foucault (1990), discursive practices create power relationships, evident in interactions between students and teachers in the ever shifting context of a classroom. Applying notions of discourse and power to value structures, one might say that teachers who operate at an Authoritarian value structure level control the power in the classroom. Davis and Blanchard (2004) found that when a teacher and a student are operating at different value structure levels, there is conflict. A similar frame was applied by Davis and Helly (2004) using a power analysis rubric with teachers from the 2003 MET program cohort. If I employ the notion of enacting values to Integral Spiral Dynamics, I can imagine the teachers in my study enacting value structures in ways that are appropriate to the ever-shifting context of classroom teaching and learning (Osborne, 1998). That is, the teachers are actors who participate in their selection of an appropriate value level at which to interact with students, while still holding a primary, more static value structure,
239
as I originally envisioned with the framework. That is, I see the individual teachers in this study taking on or enacting the value structures, of them being more fluid and able to be selected as appropriate by teachers who have reached a particular level of development. In this more fluid model, there are multiple levels of what at which an individual may select to operate, all of which a teacher may find perfectly appropriate within moments of one another in the ever-shifting context of the classroom (Habermas, 1989; Osborne, 1998). This process then harkens back to Schon’s (1987) and Dewey’s (1910) notions of reflection-in-action. I conducted a member check with Nate (personal communication, June 19, 2006), who agreed that he operated in ways that were both Authoritarian and Rationalistic, and that he aspired to both and saw each as relevant, depending on the particular student or the situation. When acting in an Authoritarian way, Nate said he often was trying to be like the “strict father,” using techniques he perceived to be behaviorist to instill actions that he thought would help his students be more responsible and more successful. He also was very comfortable giving his students many opportunities for independence and prided himself on promoting thinking about science in his classroom. He did not perceive these to be internally inconsistent, and did not regret when he acted in an Authoritarian manner, as he perceived it to be appropriate to what was needed at that moment in the context of his teaching and the perceived needs of his students. All of the instances Nate described in terms of acting from an Authoritarian value structure pertained to classroom management related situations. Therefore, what did I find to be the boundaries of the utility of Integral Spiral Dynamics, for this study? I found the teachers’ value structure levels very fluid, and therefore in need of constant analysis within the moment-to-moment context, thereby limiting the theory’s usefulness. I also felt limited by the judgmental aspect that a person at the Egalitarian value structure level below was to have of him/herself, assuming teachers would be self critical when operating in value structure levels below their “center of gravity.” Yet I did not find evidence of this. Additionally, in one moment I was thinking of Kaitlin as being “Authoritarian,” which was true in the context, but felt “Authoritarian” was inaccurate as to her overall orientation to teaching. And, as had been true with Nate, Kaitlin also saw the usefulness of strategies that would lead me to place
240
her actions at an authoritarian level. I also struggled to find an appropriate center of gravity for Kaitlin, as she was such a mixture, given the frame of the value structures. Therefore, I am drawn to the use of value structure levels that are more fluid and enacted or “performed” (Sowell, 2004) than would be suggested by Wilber’s work. In my classroom experiences, the notion of a performance of values resonates for me when I considered the real world application of the value structure levels to the classroom. As a final note and perhaps ironically, an alternate framework that I had previously rejected now seems to hold more promise, given perceived drawbacks of using Value Structures as a framework. An inclusive, interactionist conceptual ecology (eg. Demastes-Southerland et al., 1995; Southerland, Johnston, & Sowell, in press) offers promise in that it includes not only “prior conceptions but also beliefs, goals, emotions, and motivation” (Southerland et al., in press, p. 5). This framework is providing useful insights into student learning of NOS, in a recent study (Southerland, Blanchard, Golden, & Granger, in progress) and akin to worldviews (Cobern, 1993, as cited in Southerland et al., in press), is seem persistent than what I found with the teachers’ value structures and would provide relief from the moving target of the value structures as they were enacted by teachers in this study. This could perhaps allow us to better understand individual elements in the teachers’ lives that related to their actions. Therefore, I find an interactionist, conceptual ecology frame a promising alternative to Integral Spiral Dynamics in future research.
Competing Commitments versus the Role of Teacher Values Why were some teachers more resistant to changing their practices than others? Two theoretical constructs were employed to make sense of reluctance of some of the teachers to implement inquiry-based science teaching. One of the theoretical frames is that of competing commitments (Kegan & Lahey, 2001). A different possible explanation employs Integral Spiral Dynamics (Beck & Cowan, 1996; Wilber, 2000); teachers’ resistance to inquiry was a result of a mismatch between their value structures (e.g. Authoritarian) and that of the MET program (Rationalistic). Using an Integral Spiral Dynamics frame, differences in values made it difficult for Authoritarian teachers
241
to “let go” of enough of the classroom control to conduct inquiry in ways that matched the MET program model. Is one of these models better at explaining my data? I turn to an example featuring Michael and Max and both of are male teachers who teach students in the lower track, most of whom are of low socio-economic status, some of whom are mainstreamed special education students. Both of the men waited until the last two weeks of school to teach the lesson, and both required repeated invitations and support by the researcher to commit to a date. In Michael’s case, it was necessary to help him plan for and assemble some of the necessary materials to get the bottle rocket investigation ready. Yet, the inquiry in fact looked very different in the two classrooms, and as I have described. It is interesting to note that Max did not teach the lesson he had developed in the program. Instead, he taught a lesson of convenience, for it fell in the last couple weeks of the school year. The lesson was a one-day laboratory in which the students set up different systems for filtering water. Max did not think the lesson was very inquirybased. Knowing I was coming to record him teaching an inquiry-based science lesson for my dissertation, why did Max teach the lesson he did? One possible explanation using value structure levels is that Max is an independent person who operates out of what works for him, rather than what might be “better “in terms of inquiry. Operating at a Rationalistic level, Max enacted a lesson of convenience rather than what might please me for the purposes of the study. Another explanation is that Max felt too uncomfortable, given the developmental level of his students and what he perceived to be behavior and concentration issues, to let go of class control enough for his students to do inquiry. That, with his students, he operated in an Authoritarian manner through tight control over the students’ moment-to-moment actions in his classroom. The control I refer to in Max’s room relates primarily mostly to control over the sound and movement in his classroom rather than broader issues of controlling students’ meaning making in the classroom. An alternate explanation is obtained though the application of Kegan’s and Lahey’s (2001) model of competing commitments. In this model, although Max saw some value in the carrying out the inquiry, at least enough to allow me entry into his
242
room and his continued participation in the research study, he also was committed to maintaining order and staying in charge, so as to “look good” and be a “good” teacher. Contrast this with inquiry in Michael’s classroom, in which students designed bottle rockets, wrote up and presented finding to the class, over an 11-day period. Michael held personal growth of his students and empowerment as high goals, through his teaching (see Chapter Six). Although he had strong content knowledge and was comfortable with the mathematics and science concepts he taught in Chemistry and Physical Science, Michael held the students’ participation and learning as paramount, which corresponds to the Egalitarian level of Beck & Cowan’s (1996) model. Applying the frame of competing commitments, Michael found it more important to carry out the inquiry as planned than to keep to a timetable, be efficient, keep tight classroom order, or otherwise highlight other aspects of his practice. Does one of these frames give a more powerful explanation, or are both useful? In some senses, they offer additional explanations rather than necessarily conflicting with one another. Can Max be act at a Rationalistic value structure level while simultaneously being committed to keeping order? Can Michael’s operation at an Egalitarian value structure level be further explained by his temporarily downgrading his commitment to order and efficiency? In Michael’s case, it seems that the value structure level “trumps” the competing commitment. That is, Michael’s desire to focus on the learning of his students and their engagement in the lesson took precedence over his desire for classroom management. Perhaps this is an example of how differing theoretical frames can be additive rather than at odds, in terms of offering more explanations for a teacher’s actions.
Limitations of this Study
There were many methodological issues in this study. The teachers taught a lesson, but not necessarily what they thought of as inquiry. This was partially a MET program issue (based on very general instructions) and partially a result of teachers’ choices. Also, this study focused on teacher-student talk, but not student-student talk. In
243
an open inquiry class (as we saw with Charity’s data in Chapter Seven) most of the work of meaning making resides in the student cross talk. Additionally, I, the researcher, was a representative from the program, a person these teachers had come to know and want to please, for the most part. As such, I was likely getting a “best case” scenario of the teachers in their enactment of inquiry. Indeed, it is impossible to tease apart the influence of post program support and participation in my study--as participation became a kind of support. The data collection focused on only one pre program lesson and one post program lesson for each teacher, thus limiting my insight into the teachers and their transformation and assimilation resulting from the program. This study is on just one RET offered in one place--thus my findings must be limited to this particular context. Underlying this research is the assumption that inquirybased science is superior to more traditional forms of science teaching. The results of this study indicate that this assumption needs more careful scrutiny. The initial focus on values as the key factor in teachers’ enactment may have kept the researcher from seeing or exploring other factors.
Directions for Future Research
Research using the individual teacher as the unit of analysis…indicates that meaningful learning is a slow and uncertain process for teachers, just as it is for students. Some teachers change more than others through participation in professional development programs (Borko, 2004, p. 5).
Those of us interested in educational reform may lose sight of an important fact: not all teachers are interested in transforming their practice. Take the ten teachers in my dissertation study. Did they all come to learn? In some ways. Teachers came to the MET program to learn; but they also came to earn some money, meet people, go to the beach, and have some fun. My data support that all of the ten teachers learned. All the teachers demonstrated changes in their pre and post program conceptions of inquiry, and all showed some
244
differences in how they enacted inquiry, although this enactment varied considerably along a very broad range of the inquiry continuum. But only Princess, Kaitlin, and Michael showed clear signs of inquiry transforming the way they thought about their teaching. Two of these teachers had already been “primed” for the experience through a graduate level theory class, and the third teacher was enrolled earning a specialist’s degree in special education. In Chapter Six of this dissertation, an argument was presented that teachers who have more sophisticated views of teaching and learning are more likely to more broadly employ what they learned in terms of theory and models of teaching rather than discrete teaching practices. One of the questions I have that I believe warrants additional study relates to the intentions of teachers who enroll in professional development experiences, and how that may link to the learning that takes place. It may be better to find teachers who want to learn how to enact inquiry-based science teaching in their classrooms, for instance, if that is the goal of the professional development program (as it was for the MET program). I think further research is called for in exploring the ways to connect professional development experiences with those who are most interested in changing their practices (Sowell, Southerland & Granger, 2006). Other research questions that seem worthy of investigation are, What is the most effective model for follow-up support? How can we link the RET experience more firmly to the teachers classroom worlds, while helping them understand what science is? That is, how can we better support them to move past assimilation and on to transformation?
245
APPENDIX HUMAN SUBJECTS FORMS
INFORMED CONSENT FORM I freely and voluntarily and without element of force or coercion consent to be a participant in the research project entitled “How secondary science teachers implement inquiry-based science teaching in their classrooms following a five-week summer marine ecology program.” This research is being conducted by Margaret R. “Meg” Blanchard who is a doctoral student in the Science Education Program at Florida State University. I understand the purpose of her research is to better understand how secondary science teachers implement inquiry-based science teaching after participating in the Marine Ecology for Teachers program at Florida State University Marine Lab, from June 7-July 9, 2004. I understand that she will visit my classroom for the period of time that I re-teach my inquiry-based science lesson. During this time, she will videotape my teaching, take field notes, and interview me on tape at least once for approximately one-two hours. My participation and feedback is an essential part of this research project. I am a ‘stakeholder’ in this research, as is the researcher and all other teacher participants I understand that the pre and post program questionnaires that I turn in will become a part of the research project, as well as the pre-program videotape of my teaching and my lesson plans. All initial field notes written by the researcher during the project may contain my name, but they will be handled only by the researcher. All drafts of papers or other writings related to the project will contain a pseudonym for my name. I give my permission for the researcher to write her dissertation based on this research and submit papers for publication based on this research, in which I will be given a pseudonym. All audiotapes will be transcribed and the audiotapes and videotapes will be erased by August 1, 2010. They will be stored in a box of the researcher at her office in a locked file cabinet and not open to others. Your data will be kept confidential to the extent allowed by law.
I understand that my participation is totally voluntary and I may stop my participation at any time. My participation will in no way be reported to my supervisors, colleagues, other program participants, or others outside of the researcher and her committee members. I understand there is a possibility of a minimal level of risk involved if I agree to participate in this study. I will be sharing my thoughts with a researcher that I have only known for a few months and I may occasionally feel uncomfortable with the tape
246
recorder and videocassette recorder, as well as the researcher present in my class. I understand that I may disagree with the findings of the researcher, but that my views will still be represented in some form in the dissertation. While the researcher is not here to judge me and has no agenda in what I will do in my classroom, I may occasionally feel uncomfortable having someone observe my teaching. I understand there are benefits for participating in this research project. First, my own awareness about my learning and my science teaching may increase. Also, I will have the experience of being an integral part of a research process in which my views are reflected. It may enhance my experience of having participated in the Marine Ecology for Teachers program. I may reflect more on my practice as a result of my participation in the research, which may enhance my learning and my teaching. If I so choose, I could participate in a future paper with the researcher about my teaching, which could further enhance my professional experience and my learning. I understand that this consent may be withdrawn at any time without prejudice, penalty or loss of benefits to which I am otherwise entitled. I have been given the right to ask and have answered any inquiry concerning the study. Questions, if any, have been answered to my satisfaction. I understand that I may contact Meg Blanchard, Florida State University, Science Education Program, 207 Carothers, (850) 556-2283 or (850) 562-2648, for answers to questions about this research, or my rights. I have read and understood this consent form. ________________________________ (Signature)
______________ (Date)
If you have any questions about your rights as a subject/participant in this research, or if you feel you have been placed at risk, you can contact the Chair of the Human Subjects Committee, Institutional Review Board, through the Vice President for the Office of Research at (850) 644-8633.
247
The teacher in your child’s science classroom has consented to participate in a dissertation project entitled “Translating Inquiry-Based Science Teaching: From FieldBased Inservice into Secondary School Science Classrooms.” This research is being conducted by Margaret R. “Meg” Blanchard who is a doctoral student in the Science Education Program at Florida State University. The purpose of her research is to better understand how middle and high school science teachers teach a particular science lesson after participating in the summer 2004 Marine Ecology for Teachers program at the Florida State University Marine Lab. This research has been approved by the Human Subjects Committee at Florida State University. Meg will visit your child’s science classroom for the period of time that the teacher reteaches his or her inquiry-based science lesson, usually for 3-7 days. This will happen sometime between December and March of this school year, 2004-2005. During this time, she will videotape the teacher’s teaching and take field notes. The teacher will carry an audiotape recorder so Meg can transcribe the questions the teacher asks, for her analysis. During the videotaping and audio taping, it is likely that images of some of the students will be captured on the videotape and their voices will be captured. No students will be identified, and the focus will be on the teacher. The students are not the subject of this research. Only the teacher is being researched. All videotapes and audiotapes will be viewed/listened to only by the researcher and the teacher, or faculty advisors to Meg, and will be stored in a locked file cabinet and destroyed or erased by August 1, 2010. The audiotapes will also be listened to by a person who is transcribing the tapes. The research is a way for the teachers to focus on improving their teaching. This research will in no way affect your child’s grade. Class will carry on as usual, and the researcher will simply tape and observe the teacher. I consent to have my child captured on videotape and his or her voice captured on audiotape, and I understand that my child is not the focus of this classroom research. ________________________________ (Signature)
______________ (Date)
If you have any questions about your rights as a subject/participant in this research, or if you feel you have been placed at risk, you can contact the Chair of the Human Subjects Committee, Institutional Review Board, through the Vice President for the Office of Research at (850) 644-8633. 248
REFERENCES Abrams, E. & Southerland, S. (2003, March). Learning about inquiry and using inquiry to learn: How effective can it be? How effective can we be? Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA. Abrams, E., & Southerland, S.A. (Eds.) (in progress). Inquiry in the classrooms: Challenges and Opportunities. Greenwich, Ct: Information age publishing. Abusharbain, E. (2002). Enhancing inservice teacher’s constructivist epistemology through the development and redesign of inquiry-based investigations together with their students. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 7(1). American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science Literacy. New York: Oxford University Press. Anderson, A. (2003, March). Difficulties with inquiry in science classrooms. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA. Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: what research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, (1), 1-12. Anderson, L.W. & Krathwohl, D.R. (Eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. Anderson, R. D. & Helms, J. V. (2001). The ideal of standards and the reality of schools: Needed research. Journal of Research in Science Education, 38, 3-16. Auerbach, C. F. & Silverstein, L. B. (2003). Qualitative Data: An introduction to coding and analysis. New York: New York University Press. Balinsky, M. G. (2006). Forging an identity: Science doctoral students in a collaborative partnership with K-8 science teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL. Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J, & Ratcliffe, M. (2004). Teaching students “ideas-aboutscience”: Five dimensions of effective practice. Science Education, 88, 655-682. Beck, D., & Cowan, C. (1996). Spiral dynamics: Mastering values, leadership and change. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
249
Bencze, L., & Hodson, D. (1999). Changing practice by changing practice: Toward a more authentic science and science curriculum development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 521-539. Blanchard, M. R. (1999). Analyzing a process of change in a college statistics classroom: A team learning approach. Unpublished master's thesis, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL. Blanchard, M. R., (2003). Does feminist standpoint theory inform the experiences of elementary school teachers after a summer research experience? Unpublished paper, Florida State University. Blanchard, M. R., Daigle, N., & Malcom, C. (2005, April). Changes in two marine science teachers’ conceptions and enactment of inquiry-based science teaching, following a field-based research experience. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX. Blanchard, M. R., Hancock, E. S., Stallins, J. A. (in progress). Nesting preferences of fox squirrels in a north Florida Sandhill community undergoing restoration. Blanchard, M.R. & Muire, C. (2005, October). Be mindful of what you model: How a research experience for teachers shaped teachers’ conceptions of inquiry-based science teaching. Paper presented at the meeting of the Southeastern Association for Science Teacher Educators, Athens, Georgia. Blanchard, M. R., Muire, C., Davis, N. T., & Granger, D. E. (in progress). Be mindful of what you model: Secondary teachers’ evolving conceptions of inquiry-based science teaching. Blanchard, M. R., & Southerland, S. A. (2006, January). No silver bullet for inquiry: The interactions of RET’s and teachers’ conceptions of teaching & learning. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Science Teacher Education, Portland, OR. Blanchard, M.R., Southerland, S.A., Granger, D.E. (March, 2006). Second Quarterly Report: Assessment of student learning in a laboratory setting. MultiUniversity Reading, Mathematics, and Science Initiative, Learning Systems Institute, FSU. Bodzin, A. M., & Beerer, K. M. (2003). Promoting inquiry-based science instruction: The validation of the science teacher inquiry rubric (STIR). Journal of Elementary Science Education, 15(2), 39-49. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33, 3-15.
250
Bybee, R.W. (2004) Scientific inquiry and science teaching. In L.B. Flick & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and the nature of science. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 1-14. Bybee, R.W. (1993). Reforming science education: Social perspectives and personal reflections. New York: Teachers College Press. Chinn, C. A. & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175218. Cobern, W. W. (1996). Worldview theory and conceptual change in science education. Science Education, 80 (5), 579-610. Covey, S. R. (1989). The seven habits of highly effective people: Restoring the character ethic. New York: Simon and Schuster. Crawford, B. A. (1999). Is it realistic to expect a preservice teacher to create an inquirybased classroom? Journal of Science teacher Education, 10, 175-194. Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916-937. Dana, T. M. & Davis, N. T. (1993). On considering constructivism for improving mathematics and science teaching and learning. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The Practice of Constructivism in Science Education, Hillsdale, NJ: 325-333. Davis, N. T. (1989). The implementation of peer coaching by teachers of differing disciplines. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Georgia, Athen, GA. Davis, N. T. & Blanchard, M. R. (2004). Collaborative teams in a university statistics course: A case study of how differing value structures inhibit change. School Science and Mathematics Journal, 104(6) 279-287. Davis, N.T. & Helly, M.A. (2004, April). Inquiry in the Science Classroom: Case studies of teachers’ translation of inquiry-based research to classroom practice. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Researchers in Science Teaching, Vancouver, B.C., Canada. Davis, B., Sumara, D. & Luce-Kapler. R. (2000). Engaging minds: Learning and teaching in a complex world. Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Demastes-Southerland S., Good, R. G., & Peebles, P. (1995). Students’ conceptual ecologies and the process of conceptual change in evolution. Science Education, 79 (6), 637-666.
251
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath. Dewey, J. (1997). Experience and education. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Inc. (Original work published 1938). Dixon, P., Wilke, R., & LaFrazza, G. (in review). Linking in-service teachers' participation in a research experience to students' attitude toward science. Dutrow, J.M. (2005). An assessment of teachers’ experiences in scientific research as a method for conceptual development of pedagogical content knowledge for inquiry. Unpublished master’s thesis, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL. Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Feldman, A. (2000). Decision making in the practical domain: A model of practical conceptual change. Science Education, 84: 606-623. Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality, vol. 1: An introduction. (Robert Hurley, Trans.). New York: Random House. (Original work published in 1976) Frechtling, J. A., Sharp, L., Carey, N., & Westat, N. V. (1995, June). Teacher enhancement programs: A perspective on the last four decades. National Science Foundation. Gall, M.D. (1970). The use of questions in teaching. Review of Educational Research, 40(5), 708-721. Gallagher, J., Parker, J. (1995, October). Secondary Science Teacher Analysis Matrix (SSTAM). East Lansing, Michigan. MI: Michigan State University. Garafalo, J., Lindgren, R., & O’Neill, T. (1992). Knowledge developed by a high school teacher participating in a physics research project. Science Education (76), 43-50. Gess-Newsome, J., Southerland, S. A., Johnston, A., & Woodbury, S. (2003). Educational reform, personal practical theories, and dissatisfaction: The anatomy of change in college science teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 731-767. Granger, D.E., & Herrnkind, W. F. (1999, October). Field Biology Research Experiences for Teachers: An Effective Model for Inquiry-Based Science Teaching. Proposal to the National Science Foundation. Funded 1999-2005. Granger, D.E., & Herrnkind, W. F. (2002) Field Biology Experiences for Teachers: An Effective Model for Inquiry-Based Teaching. Annual Report to the National
252
Science Foundation. Guba, E. G. (1987). Naturalistic Evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, (34), summer, 23-43. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Habermas, J. (1989). The theory of communicative action (Vol. 2): Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press. (Original work published 1981). Harding, S. (1991). Whose Science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Harwood, W. S., Hansen, J., & Lotter, C. (2005, April). Measuring teacher beliefs about inquiry: The development of a blended qualitative/quantitative instrument. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, Texas. Harwood, W.S., Reiff, R.R., & Phillipson, T. (2002, April). Conceptions of Scientific Inquiry: Voices from the Front. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA. Helly, M. A. (2002). Anatomy of a failure: A study of collaboration within a high school academy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL. Hinrichsen, J., Jarrett, D., & Peixotto, K. (1999). The Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory program report. Retrieved [08/30/2004], from http://www.nwrel.org/msec/science_inq/answers.html Hofstein, A., Navon, O., Kipnis, M., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Developing students’ ability to ask more and better questions resulting from inquiry-type chemistry laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(7), 791-806. Huitt, W. (2004). Bloom et al.’s taxonomy of the cognitive domain. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved [08/23/2004], from http://chiron.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/bloom.html. Johnston, A. T. & Southerland, S. A. (in review). Tiny atoms, round planets, and big bang: Extrarational constructions of the nature of science. Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
253
Kegan, R. & Lahey, L. L. (2001). The real reason people won’t change. Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation. Kelly, G. J., Brown, C., & Crawford, T. (2000). Experiments, contingencies, and curriculum: Providing opportunities for learning through improvisation in science teaching. Science Education, 84, 624-657. Keys, C. W. & Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 38, 631-645. Langford, K. & Huntley, M.A. (1999). Internships as commencement: Mathematics and science research experiences as catalysts for preservice teacher professional development. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2, 277-299. Lappert, J. (1996). The impact of an inquiry-based science research experience on the instructional practices of middle school science teachers. Unpublished master’s thesis, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL. Lemberger, J., Hewson, P.W., & Park, H. (1999). Relationships between prospective secondary teachers’ classroom practice and their conceptions of biology and of teaching science. Science Education, 83, 347-371. Lemke, J.L. (1990). Talking Science: Language, learning, and values. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Leu, Y-C. (2005). The enactment and perception of mathematics pedagogical values in an elementary classroom: Buddhism, Confuscianism, and curriculum reform. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Instruction, 3, 175-212. Luft, J. A. (2001). Changing inquiry practices and beliefs: the impact of an inquiry-based professional development programme on beginning teachers and experienced secondary science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 23 (5), 517-534. MacIsaac, D. & Falconer, K. (2002). Reforming physics instruction via RTOP. The Physics Teacher, 40 (8), 479-485. Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P.C., Krajcik, J.S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., Geier, R., & Tal, R.T. (2004). Inquiry-based science in the middle grades: Assessment of learning in urban systemic reform, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 10631080. McRobbie, C. & Tobin, K. (1995). Restraints to reform: The congruency of teacher and student actions in a chemistry classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 3(4), 373-385.
254
Meadows, L. (in review). Evidence & Explanation: Teaching Inquiry for Understanding Requisite teacher knowledge about inquiry and its classroom application. In E. Abrams & S. A. Southerland (Eds.) Integrating inquiry into the classroom: Myths and Realities. Information Age Publishing. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Meyer, H., Tabachnick, E. R., Hewson, P.W., Lemberger, J., & Park, H. (1999). Relationships between prospective elementary teachers’ classroom practice and their conceptions of biology and of teaching science. Science Education, 83, 323346. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd. Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Moss, D. M. (2003). Inquiry: No one should go it alone. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA. Muire, C. (1997). Analyses of science education reform in Florida: Emerging from the eclipse or trapped in the darkness? Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press. Newman, W. J. (2005, April). Developing a discourse matrix and model from elementary discourse. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX. Nott, M., & Wellington, J. (1995). Critical incidents in the science classroom and the nature of science. School Science Review, 76 (276), 41-46. Olson, M. (in review). Requisite knowledge for teaching science via inquiry. In E. Abrams & S. A. Southerland (Eds.) Integrating inquiry into the classroom: Myths and Realities. Information Age Publishing. Olson, S. & Louckes-Horsley, S. (2004). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
255
O’Neill, D.K., & Polman, J.L. (2004). Why educate “little scientists?” Examining the potential of practice-based scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 234-266. Osborne, M. D. (1998). Teacher as knower and learner: Reflections on situated knowledge in science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(4), 427-439. Palmer, P. J. The courage to teach. (1998). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Palmer, Troy (1995). The needs of secondary school science teachers: A report to the Florida Department of Education. A statewide evaluation project funded by a Title II Higher Education grant to the Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL. Parke, H. M. & Coble, C. R. (1997). Teachers designing curriculum as professional development: A model for transformational science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 34, 73-789. Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (1995) Understanding curriculum: An introduction to the study of historical and contemporary curriculum discourses. New York: Peter Lang. Rahm, J., Miller, H.C., Hartley, L., & Moore, J.C. (2003). The value of an emergent notion of authenticity: Examples from two student/teacher-scientist partnership programs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 737-756. Richardson, L. (2000). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd ed. (923-948). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist Pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105(9), 1623-1640. Roehrig, G. H., & Luft, J. A. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary science teachers in implementing scientific inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 26 (1), 3-24. Rosenshine, B., Meiester, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 181-221. Roth, W.-M. (1996). Teacher questioning in an open-inquiry learning environment: Interactions of context, content, and student responses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, (7), 709-736.
256
Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345-372. Schön, D. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. (1987). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Schön, D. (1988). Coaching reflective teaching. In P.P. Grimmett & G.L. Erickson (Eds.). Reflection in teacher education. New York: Teacher’s College Press. Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2004, April). Epistemological views in authentic science practice: A cross-discipline comparison of scientists’ views of nature of science and scientific inquiry. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, B.C.: Canada Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2005, January). “But what do scientists say?” Scientists views of the nature of science. Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Colorado Springs, CO. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G, & Crawford, B.A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 610-645. Settlage, J. (in review). Moving past the belief that inquiry is a pedagogy. In E. Abrams & S. A. Southerland (Eds.) Integrating inquiry into the classroom: Myths and Realities. Information Age Publishing. Settlage, J. (2003). Inquiry’s allure and elusion: Why it remains just beyond our reach. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA. Settlage, J. & Blanchard, M. R. (in review). Requisite teacher knowledge about inquiry and its classroom application. In E. Abrams & S. A. Southerland (Eds.) Integrating inquiry into the classroom: Myths and Realities. Information Age Publishing. Settlage, J., & Southerland, S.A. (in review). Nature of science and scientific inquiry. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Allyn & Bacon/Longman Publishers. Seymour, E., Hunter, A., Laursen, S.L., & Deatoni, T. (2004). Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: First findings from a three-year study. Science Education, 1-42. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
257
Sinatra, G.M., Southerland, S.A., McConaughy, F., & Demastes, J.W. (2003). Intentions and beliefs in students’ understanding and acceptance of biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 510-528. Solomon, J. & Rhodes, N.C. (1995). Conceptualizing academic language. Center for research on Education, Diversity & Excellence, NCRCDSLL Research Report 15, University of California, Santa Barbara. Southerland, S.A., Gess-Newsome, J., & Johnson, A. (2003). Portraying science in the classroom: The manifestation of scientists’ beliefs in classroom practice. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 40, 669-691. Southerland, S. A., Blanchard, M. R., Golden, B., & Granger, D. E. (in progress). High School Students’ Conceptual Ecologies for Nature of Science. Southerland, S.A., Johnston, A. T., & Sowell, S. (in press). Describing teachers’ conceptual ecologies for the nature of science. Science Education. Southerland, S. A., Rose, K., & Blanchard, M. R. (in review). A circuitous route to reform: Interactions of curriculum materials, research professional development experiences, personal support, and a teacher’s pedagogical discontentment. In J. Gess-Newsome, J. Luft, & R. Bell (Eds.) Reforming Secondary Science Instruction. National Science Foundation. Sowell, S. (2004). Doing gender/teaching science: A feminist poststructural analysis of middle school science teachers’ identity negotiations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University. Sowell, S., Southerland, S.A., & Blanchard, M.R. (2006, April). Who are the “They” in “They say…”? Finding fruitfulness of nature of science within an urban context. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA. Sowell, S., Southerland, S.A., Granger, D.E. (2006, April). Exploring the Construct of Teacher Pedagogical Discontentment: A Tool to Understand Teachers’ Openness to Reform? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Spiegel, S. A., Collins, A., & Gilmer, P. J. (1995). Science for early adolescence teachers (Science FEAT): A program for research and learning, Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6, 165-174. Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
258
Stake, R. E. (2000). Case Studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Switzer, P.W. & Shriner, W.M. (2000). Mimicking the scientific process in the upperdivision laboratory. Bioscience, 50(2), 157-162. Tabachnick, B.R., & Zeichner, K.M. (1999). Idea and action: Action research and the development of conceptual change teaching of science. Science Education, 83, 309-322. Tobias, S. (1992). Revitalizing undergraduate education. Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation. Trundle, K.C., Atwood, R.K., & Christopher, J.E. (2002). Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of moon phases before and after instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 633-658. van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience; Human sciences for an action sensitive pedagogy. New York, NY: Suny Press. van Zee, E. H. (2000). Analysis of a student-generated inquiry discussion. International Journal of Science Education, 22 (2), 115-142. van Zee, E. H., Iwasyk, M., Kurose, A., Simpson, D., Wild, J. (2001). Student and teacher questioning during conversations about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 159-190. Wellington, J. & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Wolcott, H. F. (2001). Writing up qualitative research (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Wilber, K. (2000). Integral Psychology. Boston: Shambhala. Wilber, K. (1995). Sex, Ecology, and Spirituality. Boston: Shambhala. Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of “inquiry:” How preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific model. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 481-512. Woodbury, S. & Gess-Newsome, J. (2002). Overcoming the paradox of change without difference: A model of change in the arena of fundamental school reform. Educational Policy, 16(5), 763-782.
259
Yalaki, Y. (2004). Worldview: A new framework for science teacher education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL. Yerrick, R.K. (2000). Lower track students’ argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 807-838. Yore, L. D. (2003, March). Science inquiry teaching and learning outcomes: considerations of the demands on elementary teachers., students and schools. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
260
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Margaret “Meg” Blanchard has spent the last fifteen years in central and northern Florida. During this time, she taught biology and environmental science at the high school and middle school levels in St. Johns and Citrus counties. Her desire to earn a graduate degree and the lure of an interesting job for her husband brought them to Tallahassee, where she began her master’s degree in spring of 1997. Along the way to earning her Ph.D. in science education, Meg worked on grants and curriculum development, moved three times, produced two children, stayed home to raise them, participated in two major research projects, and finally completed her own dissertation research and writing. Meg will continue her career in North Carolina State University as an assistant professor in science education. She plans to continue her work with practicing teachers and hopes to make a difference in how science is taught and learned in science classrooms. Meg, her husband Jon, and their two children Benjamin and Emerson Blanchard live in Raleigh, North Carolina.
261
