Why is Science so Boring?

An Exploration of the Failure to Implement Inquiry Instruction in the United States

Transformative Leadership for Schools

Amy Burnell

Essay #2

Inquiry instruction in science has been a hot topic of research for over three decades. The

construct of inquiry in science has gone through a long process of refinement through the years

since it is a difficult term to operationally define. However, there are several “essential features

of classroom inquiry” outlined by the National Research Council (NRC, 2000):

1. Learners are engaged by scientifically oriented questions.2. Learners give priority to evidence, which allows them to develop and evaluate explanations

that address scientifically oriented questions.3. Learners formulate explanations from evidence to address scientifically oriented questions.4. Learners evaluate their explanations in light of alternative explanations, particularly those

reflecting scientific understanding.5. Learners communicate and justify their proposed explanations.

These features of classroom inquiry all relate to the facet of inquiry instruction, in which the

teacher designs lessons that guide students in an inquiry learning experience. Theoretically, the

purpose of classroom inquiry is to emulate scientific inquiry, or the process by which scientists in

the field conduct research to find answers to specific questions (Anderson, 2002). The questions

that have been raised in the literature center on why inquiry instruction seems to still be missing

1

from classrooms in the United States, especially considering that inquiry-based teaching seems

to be used in classrooms globally.

Guiding Questions

1. In which jurisdictions globally is inquiry instruction a focus of mainstream practice?

What learner outcomes are associated with its use?

2. Is inquiry instruction a focus in US classrooms?

3. What barriers may be preventing inquiry instruction in the US?

Current Status in Other Countries

Inquiry instruction seems to be widely used in science classes – outside of the US. In Japan,

student engagement is considered the most critical factor in good teaching, and “teachers put a

great deal of thought into their design for the way each lesson will unfold, from the standpoint of

maximizing student engagement” (Tucker, 2011, p.89). In Surpassing Shanghai, Tucker goes on

to describe an example of a mathematics lesson, originally described in Stevenson & Stigler’s

The Learning Gap, in which inquiry into a specific question is the chosen pedagogy in order to

engage the students. Students were presented with an intriguing question, “Which of these six

containers would hold the most water?” and spent the rest of the lesson conducting experiments

and interpreting data to answer the question. Inquiry is a highly engaging form of pedagogy, so it

is no surprise that Japanese teachers, who value engagement above all else, regularly form their

lessons around inquiry.

In Finland, teachers are highly educated, selected from the highest performers, and are given

substantial professional freedoms in their pedagogical choices. While specific information about

2

use of inquiry teaching in Finland is unavailable, it is interesting to note that in the National Core

Curriculum for Basic Education, the Finnish curriculum framework, the amount of motivation,

engagement, and student responsibility for learning is specifically addressed:

The learning environment must support the pupil’s growth and learning. It must be physically, psychologically, and socially safe, and must support the pupil’s health. The objective is to increase pupils’ curiosity and motivation to learn, and to promote their activeness, self-direction, and creativity by offering interesting challenges and problems. The learning environment must guide pupils in setting their own objectives and evaluating their own actions. The pupils must be given the chance to participate in the creation and development of their own learning environment. (Tucker, 2011, p. 60)

The Finnish system seems to encourage inquiry in their highly trained, specialized teaching force

and through their national curricular framework. Whether this support is the cause of their high

levels of achievement on the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Studies (TIMSS)

and the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) in Science, is beyond the scope of

this review (refer to Appendix A).

It can be noticed, however, that along with Japan and Finland, Singapore also has high

achievement on the TIMSS. Singapore has very strong science instruction built into their

recently designed and updated educational system. The national curriculum for science in

Singapore “focuses on developing the idea of science as inquiry through three domains:

knowledge, understanding, and application; skills and processes; and ethics and attitudes. To

interest students in viewing science as useful, inquiry projects are based on the roles played by

science in daily life, society, and the environment” (Tucker, 2011, p. 126). Despite the relatively

sparse amount of data on science classrooms in these countries, they have all built inquiry in

science into their educational system, and are performing among the highest countries in

3

international science assessments. The US, on the other hand, is performing well below these

top performers. What is happening in our science classrooms?

Current Status in the US

The United States has tried to build inquiry in science into our national curriculum standards, just

like the previously mentioned jurisdictions. The difference here, however, is that despite the

major reform documents’ advocacy for inquiry-based teaching (NRC, 2000), it appears that the

majority of science is taught with traditional methods or activities that do not conform to the

national standards (Capps & Crawford, 2013). Capps & Crawford (2013) conducted an

empirical research study on twenty-six teachers across the country selected for their willingness

to participate in inquiry focused professional development, for their teaching experience, and

number of college-level science courses taken. These teachers were selected because they were

thought to be highly motivated (since they applied to participate in the program), and effective

teachers (since they had significant teaching experience, a high level of content knowledge, and

support from their administration). Having gathered and analyzed both quantitative and

qualitative data on the teachers’ instruction shown by their chosen “best lesson” before the

professional development program, and analyzing teachers’ responses to survey questions to find

out their perceptions of inquiry teaching and the nature of science, Capps and Crawford (2013)

found that this sample of teachers had only two out of the twenty-six teachers who both

understood what inquiry instruction is supposed to look like, and used inquiry in the classroom.

Most of the teachers in this study misunderstood inquiry as hands-on and experiential learning

without student pursuit of a scientifically oriented question, and without using evidence to

discuss and form conclusions. Many of the teachers believed they were using inquiry as

4

described by the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 2000), but they had very little

instructional science inquiry in their lessons. Although the sample size for this study was small,

and the selection criteria could have been more rigorous, Capps and Crawford (2013) conclude

that the actual amount of inquiry occurring in US classrooms is likely to be much smaller than

their findings – since the effective and motivated teachers involved in the study were asked to

submit their best inquiry lessons.

Although there is very little empirical research examining instructional practices in the majority

of US science classrooms, Capps and Crawford provide a sliver of insight into the dismal state of

affairs that many researchers assume exists. It is generally accepted in the literature that:

Despite the apparent strength of this integrated approach to teaching and learning science, despite the widespread positive reports from teachers, and despite the increasing numbers of schools and districts that are embracing inquiry- based science instruction, the vast majority of our public schools still rely on the traditional "drill and kill" model of teaching science: students study textbooks, watch videotapes on various topics, answer the questions found at the end of the chapter, and perhaps observe an occasional demonstration performed by the teacher. (Jorgenson and Vanosdall, 2002, p. 2)

The differences between how science is taught in high performing countries and in the United

States raises the question of what aspects about this country could there be that present more

difficulties for teachers to teach through inquiry?

Barriers to Inquiry in Practice in the US

Anderson (1996) presented a framework for analyzing the dilemmas teachers face in

implementing reform-based instruction. He delineated three major facets: technical barriers,

political barriers, and cultural barriers. Technical barriers include the teacher’s content

knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and the ability to apply this knowledge to reform

5

instruction. Political barriers refer to lack of supportive leadership from the school or district,

lack of resources, parental support, collaboration, and professional development opportunities.

Teachers also experience cultural barriers that include their existing beliefs and values about the

nature of teaching, and the pressure they feel in regards to the standardized testing mandates.

This broad framework has been accepted and expanded upon in the literature, although many of

the existing studies do not explicitly address all of the barriers, or even recognize that their

results can be framed within these facets.

Technical Barriers

Table borrowed from Johnson (2006)

Johnson (2006) presents this table as an expanded framework for analyzing technical barriers in

reforming instruction. She suggests that content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and ability

to implement reform are important for a teachers’ ability to begin to teach students through

inquiry methods. 6

Berns and Swanson (2000) conducted a case study following two teacher-leaders in science who

are leading the effort to reform instruction, and examined the difficulties these teachers faced.

Each of these teachers were identified as exemplary middle school science teachers, but it was

found that one had a deep knowledge of science content, and the other had excellent pedagogical

knowledge – but neither one had both forms of necessary knowledge. They also both

experienced difficulties in turning theoretical reform methods into effective instruction aligned

with the standards. Berns and Swanson concluded from their analysis that “Inadequate

preparation in both content, scientific inquiry, and appropriate pedagogical skills in teacher

education programs leave new teachers poorly prepared to engage in the complex process

required in inquiry-based instruction” (2000, p. 16).

Teachers may be poorly prepared because they were educated in the very system that has

consistently reverted to direct instruction or “many classroom activities that are either irrelevant

to learning key science ideas or don't help students relate what they doing to the underlying

ideas” (Berns and Swanson, 2000). Crawford (2000) states the difference between inquiry and

active-learning well: “There is a danger in equating inquiry-based instruction with the currently

accepted notion of “hand-on science” in which teachers provide students with a series of hands-

on activities that often are unconnected to substantive science content” (p. 918). Inquiry requires

a “hands-on, minds-on” approach to fulfill the essential feature of classroom inquiry as outlined

in the introduction (NRC, 2000). Many teachers have a very limited idea of what inquiry

teaching looks like (Capps and Crawford, 2013). It remains difficult for teachers to teach

students through inquiry into scientifically oriented questions when they do not have the

knowledge required to do so.

7

Technical barriers in content and pedagogy are not the most difficult dilemmas to resolve.

Providing quality professional development and collaborating with other teachers within a

school, both of which will be discussed in further detail below, have the potential to provide

content knowledge, pedagogy, and even provide support in developing lessons and directly

implementing reform-based methods to the classroom. Political and cultural barriers seem to

provide more resistance in US science classrooms than purely technical aspects.

Political Barriers

Table borrowed from Johnson (2006)

Political barriers in the US school system are particularly intriguing, since the politics of

schooling differ so dramatically globally. Within the US, teachers are provided support through

department, school, and district, with a wide range of variation between all layers. Schools and

districts either provide effective professional development strategies, or fail to provide

appropriate learning opportunities for teachers. In a focused, qualitative study, Johnson (2006)

8

explored the barriers to instructional reform that science teachers encountered in a collaborative,

sustained, whole-school reform program at two middle schools. She found that “More support is

required for professional development efforts to be successful, such as resources and time, as

well as administrative buy-in and support” (Johnson, 2006, p.1). Similarly, Berns and Swanson

(2000) deduced that the leadership providing “quality ongoing professional development that

integrates content, inquiry strategies, and assessment practices” is limited (p. 1). In the schools

studied by these researchers, there is clearly a political barrier for teachers attempting to meet

instructional standards. McLaughlin and Talbert (2006) also address the substantial political

barriers in our public schools, including lack of administrator support, lack of professional

development, and difficulties teachers face in terms of time and resources.

Standardized testing brings another angle to the political dimension. Jorgenson and Vanodall

(2002) argued that high-stakes testing of the three R’s (reading, writing, and mathematics) has

resulted in a fixation toward these subjects, to the detriment of all else, including science.

According to these scholars, the high-stakes testing movement that bases accountability on test

results, swept across the country just as inquiry-based methods in science were starting to take

hold and spread in the early 2000’s. The result was that the testing frenzy squashed what little

hope the science education community had for true reform in instruction. This scholarly paper

displays inherent bias and a lack of evidence to support such claims, but is interesting to consider

with skepticism in mind.

Finally, perception of school culture in the amount of support provided seems to present another

form of resistance. McGinnis et al. (2004) followed five beginning teachers that had just

completed a reform oriented teacher preparation program through their first two years of

9

teaching. They found that the most significant factor in successful implementation of inquiry

teaching was the teachers’ perceived cultural environment. More resistant school cultures

resulted in a pattern of social strategies employed by the reform-minded beginning teachers:

resistance, moving on, and exit. The teachers were unsuccessful in individually changing their

school cultures or in maintaining their own teaching practices within hostile environments

(McGinnis et al., 2004). Political barriers are variable and can cause severe difficulties to

reform-based instruction in science in the United States.

In US science classrooms, it seems that in addition to potentially substantial political barriers and

technical barriers, many teachers face deep cultural barriers as well, that may be even more

difficult to overcome than either of the other two.

Cultural Barriers

Table borrowed from Johnson (2006)

10

Teachers that were educated in the US may have significant difficulties in overcoming their

deeply embedded values and beliefs about teaching, to be able to shift toward a whole new

structural set of pedagogical ideas. Wright and Wright (2002) described the issue succinctly:

“Changing attitudes and expectations is among the most difficult things an individual can be

asked to do” (p. 123). It is reflected in the research that pre-existing beliefs and values are the

strongest barrier to enacting reformed instruction. Blanchard et al. (2009) found the teachers

starting with “more sophisticated, theory-based understanding of teaching and learning were

more apt to understand inquiry as a model and to use classroom-based teaching” (p. 323).

Similarly, Crawford (2007) in a high-impact qualitative study, found that there was huge

variation between teaching styles of prospective teachers and the critical factor was personal

beliefs about teaching and personal beliefs about science. Johnson (2006) also noted in the eight

teachers examined, that beliefs were the strongest resistance to implementation. The other

cultural barriers (see Table 3) were also found by Johnson (2006), but were not as significant in

the analysis.

Blanchard et al. (2010) collected survey data from teachers across the state of North Carolina to

assess teacher perspectives, since North Carolina had recently updated its curriculum framework

and political supports to emphasize inquiry-based instruction in science. They found that the

largest predictor of inquiry use was teacher “comfort with inquiry”. Interestingly enough, it was

found that inquiry use was higher in elementary education, less in middle schools, and the least

in high schools. When examined along with “passion about science”, the teachers who were

most passionate about the subject but uncomfortable with inquiry were least likely to use inquiry

methods, as opposed to teachers who were most passionate and comfortable being most likely to

11

use inquiry methods. It seems that valuing science exacerbated the teacher’s personal cultural

beliefs.

Personal culture and school culture alike (addressed in the Political Barriers section), provide

strong resistance for teachers. These cultures in the US may be the critical factor amongst all of

the reasons our science classrooms continue to exemplify disengaging instructional strategies.

As difficult as cultural aspects are to change, there remains hope for creating engaging science

classrooms involving students in inquiry learning. These sources of hope will be discussed next,

in terms of first, professional development initiatives, and second, creating lasting teacher

learning communities within schools.

Professional Development

There are many research studies looking at how to make professional development for all

subjects effective in terms of improving a variety of outcomes for students, however, for this

review, I will be focusing on research that specifically examines professional development for

incorporating inquiry-based teaching in science.

Supovitz and Turner (2000), in a landmark review, examined correlations between quantity of

professional development (specifically the Local Systemic Change initiative focused on inquiry

teaching), teaching practice, and classroom culture. They address the strengths and weaknesses

of the survey data used for the study, and conclude that the data is representative of topical

content and instruction, but would not be valid to assess teacher instructional goals. Their

findings that the quantity of professional development is strongly linked to inquiry-based

12

teaching and an investigative classroom culture, seem to point out that professional development

experiences can in fact change instructional methods.

Capps and Crawford (2012) decided to take a different approach to the topic and determine what

the most effective pieces of professional development for inquiry teaching are. They reviewed

professional development programs claiming to emphasize inquiry in terms of features of the

program, and they critiqued the results in terms of stated desired outcomes. Their findings

suggest that professional development for science teachers should follow the same characteristics

described by Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin (1995) and Loucks-Horsley et al. (1998)

(referenced by Capps and Crawford, 2012), as well as a few characteristics addressing specific

needs for science teachers: “they will need to possess a depth of science content knowledge,

understand what inquiry is, have experience in both conducting scientific inquiry and teaching

using inquiry-based approaches, and, finally, have adequate practice adapting lessons to be

congruent with inquiry-based instruction” (Capps and Crawford, 2012, p. 307). Science teachers

specifically need support in content knowledge, to understand what inquiry teaching

encompasses, experiences in research and scientific inquiry, and have opportunities to practice

application to the classroom.

There are instances of professional development programs positively influencing the nature of

instruction in science classes (see below), however, Supovitz and Turner (2000) and Capps and

Crawford (2012) address only the technical barriers to implementing reform-based teaching –

teacher knowledge. Cultural and political dilemmas would also need to be addressed

concurrently. In many ways, professional development opportunities and building teacher

13

learning communities are mutualistic in nature – they provide complementary support for

teachers and build off of each other.

Teacher Learning Communities

McLaughin and Talbert (2006), in their seminal work Building School-Based Teacher Learning

Communities, discuss and describe in detail the benefits, dilemmas, and ways to implement a

cultural shift in schools, and how to develop a community of learners amongst teachers.

Although this work addresses the issue from a broader perspective than reforming science only,

there is a lot to be learned and applied to the issue of disengaging science classes in the US.

Previously, on p. 11 of this review, it was mentioned that cultural barriers seem to be the most

influential – and most difficult to overcome: “Teacher learning communities change culture in a

way difficult to accomplish in any profession, but most especially in the isolated, individualistic

lives of schoolteachers” (McLaughlin and Talbert, 2006, p. 11). Strong teacher collaboration

and professional reflection have the ability to change the innate beliefs of teachers and the

broader school culture. In several instance described by McLaughlin and Talbert (2006),

teachers who were originally set against reform were convinced by the evidence or pulled in

through examining individual students. Teacher learning communities also change the school

culture and break down political barriers for individual teachers. Typically, a school or district

needs to utilize the expertise of a professional developer or facilitator, an outside human resource

to enter the school or district and facilitate a change in culture and practice. As McLaughlin and

Talbert (2006) put it,

14

Investment in strong professional developers ranks among the most highly leveraged outlays a district could make. The learning that occurs within schools and throughout the system can only be as good as the knowledge resources that support it; capacity-building requires capacity (p. 116).

Facilitators enable a culture change within a school or department that is not often successfully

accomplished without one because they bring a new perspective and new expectations.

Johnson and Marx (2009) demonstrated the effective use of a facilitator for creating a

professional learning community. They discuss the importance of the relationships established

by the Transformative Professional Development (TPD) program: “Trusting relationships

between the program leaders and the teachers, for example, were essential for promoting buy-in

among the teachers, many of whom were veterans and very comfortable in their teaching

approaches” (2009, p. 122). In this TPD program, effectiveness was evaluated at the beginning

of the program and again after one year. The result was in effect transformative change.

Johnson and Marx describe the results:

Teachers who participated in the TPD project began implementing effective science instructional practices, forming collaborative relationships with other teachers and project leaders, addressing English language and literacy needs of students, and deconstructing their own views about their students and how to successfully meet their educational needs, as a result of their experience. These changes were made possible through the formation of a community of learners, the teachers, whose growth was pushed through monthly focus group discussions that allowed them to bring their concerns to the table and to collectively support each other to implement new strategies to begin to change (inquiry, cooperative learning, procedures). (2009, p. 129)

It is inspiring to see that science classrooms can be substantially improved through professional

development and teacher learning communities. The barriers presented in this review are no

small matter, but they can be, and have been, broken down.

15

Concluding Thoughts

Crawford (2000) presented a case study following one exemplary teacher through a year of his

teaching. Jake teaches ecology in a purely guided inquiry format in a suburban high school. He

engages students with a series of community based projects including a water quality analysis for

the local Fish and Wildlife Department. The students are guided in constructing scientifically

oriented questions about the local river, constructing an experiment, collecting data, and

analyzing the data thoughtfully. They form conclusions based on the data and discuss which

conclusions are valid and which they cannot determine based on the evidence. This process is

repeated only six times through the school year with a significant amount of time spent on each

inquiry project. Crawford (2000) picked out six characteristics that Jake’s ecology class is built

around:

1. Instruction situated in authentic problems2. Focus on grappling with data3. Collaboration of students and teacher4. Connections with society5. Teacher modeling behaviors of a scientist6. Development of student ownership (p. 933)

This case study of Jake’s ecology class has been cited many times in the literature, possibly as an

exemplar of what our science classes should look like, according to our national standards. With

sufficient professional development and learning communities, this instructional ideal could be

reached.

Teacher learning communities already exist in most of the countries discussed in the beginning

of this review. Finland teachers only teach four 45 minute classes per day, and participate in

collaborative activities the remainder of the day. They are highly educated and prepared, and

16

therefore do not suffer the technical barriers that we do. In Japan, the practice of “lesson study”

is a form of collaborative skill building by co-designing lessons, observing each other giving

lessons, and critique for continuous improvement. There are no cultural barriers that get in the

way of using inquiry. Even Singapore’s vision, “Thinking Schools, Learning Nation,” was in

essence, a successful move toward a national learning community (Tucker, 2011). With

transformative change through teacher learning communities, barriers that cause our science

classes in the United States to be boring could be removed. Science could instead be interesting,

engaging, and inquiring.

17

References

Anderson, R. D. (1996). Study of Curriculum Reform. [Volume I: Findings and Conclusions.] Studies of Education Reform (p. 112). Boulder.

Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming Science Teaching: What Research Says About Inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12. doi:10.1023/A:1015171124982

Berns, B., & Swanson, J. (2000). Middle School Science : Working in a Confused Context (p. 19).

Blanchard, M. R., Osborne, J. W., Wallwork, C., & Harris, E. S. (2013). Progress on Implementing Inquiry in North Carolina : Nearly 1 , 000 Elementary , Middle and High School Science Teachers Weigh In. Science Educator, 22(1), 1–11.

Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. a., & Granger, E. M. (2009). No silver bullet for inquiry: Making sense of teacher change following an inquiry-based research experience for teachers. Science Education, 93(2), 322–360. doi:10.1002/sce.20298

Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V. D., Annetta, L. A., & Granger, E. M. (2010). Is inquiry possible in light of accountability?: A quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction. Science Education, 94(4), 577–616. doi:10.1002/sce.20390

Capps, D. K., & Crawford, B. A. (2013). Inquiry-Based Instruction and Teaching About Nature of Science: Are They Happening? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(3), 497–526. doi:10.1007/s10972-012-9314-z

Capps, D. K., Crawford, B. A., & Constas, M. A. (2012). A Review of Empirical Literature on Inquiry Professional Development: Alignment with Best Practices and a Critique of the Findings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(3), 291–318. doi:10.1007/s10972-012-9275-2

Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the Essence of Inquiry : New Roles for Science Teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916–937.

Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to Teach Science as Inquiry in the Rough and Tumble of Practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 613–642. doi:10.1002/tea

Johnson, C. C. (2006). Effective Professional Development and Change in Practice: Barriers Science Teachers Encounter and Implications for Reform. Effective Professional Development, 106(3), 150–161.

18

Johnson, C. C. (2007). Effective Science Teaching , Professional Development and No Child Left Behind : Barriers , Dilemmas , and Reality. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 1–5.

Johnson, C. C., & Marx, S. (2009). Transformative Professional Development: A Model for Urban Science Education Reform. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(2), 113–134. doi:10.1007/s10972-009-9127-x

Jorgenson, O., & Vanosdall, R. (2002). High-Stakes Testing - The Death of Science? What We Risk in Our Rush Toward Standardized Testing and the Three R’s. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(8), 601–605. Retrieved from http://www.kappanmagazine.org/content/83/8/601.abstract

McGinnis, J. R., Parker, C., & Graeber, A. O. (2004). A cultural perspective of the induction of five reform-minded beginning mathematics and science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(7), 720–747. doi:10.1002/tea.20022

McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2006). Building School-Based Teacher Learning Communities (p. 129). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 963–980. Retrieved from https://www.ntnu.no/wiki/download/attachments/11273030/Supovitz+(2000)_The+Effects+of+Professional+Development+on+Science+Teaching+Practices.pdf

Tucker, M. S., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2011). Surpassing Shanghai: An Agenda for American Educatioon Built on the World’s Leading Systems (p. 288). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

19