Jeff C. Marshall, PhDClemson UniversityASTE Paper PresentationJanuary, 2011

• Reform documents have defined inquiry-based practice (National Research Council, NRC, 1996) and articulated what it looks like compared to non-inquiry approaches (Llewellyn, 2005; NRC, 2000).

• High-quality, frequent inquiry-based instruction in science classrooms still not the norm.

• Differing viewpoints exist for how inquiry-based instruction should be implemented, result in challenges for as teachers transition to inquiry-based practices (Anderson, 2002).

• Numerous factors determine the degree to which teachers transition to inquiry-based practices and include such things as: • beliefs, support, content knowledge, pedagogical content

knowledge, and PD to support implementation (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000; NRC, 2000).

This study specifically examines how sustained involvement in a professional development (PD) experience assists teachers as they transition to more inquiry-based instructional practice.

Participants• Three high school physical science teachers (Anne,

Beth, and Carla)—purposeful selection

• Setting and Context:• Year-long PD experience that focused on

developing content-embedded inquiry practice with secondary math and science teachers

• Eight days in the summer • Four days of follow-up during the school year

• Multiple case design (Yin, 2003)—Within-case analysis, followed by a cross-case analysis

• Data collection involved the following: • (1) pre and post definitions of inquiry-based

instruction, • (2) classroom observations, structured by inquiry

observational protocol (EQUIP), • (3) field notes from observations, • (4) pre and post survey data, • (5) teacher interviews, and • (6) transcripts of classroom recordings.

Case 1:Anne

Case 2:Beth

Case 3:Carla

Cross-Case:Role of Teacher

Facilitator of learning: I need to truly understand what they’re talking about and to see if they’re just using words they’ve heard before without any true understanding of the science content.

Shifting roles from giver of knowledge to facilitator: Teaching using inquiry has helped me not to just give students all the answers.

Developing facilitator: If I ask a student a question now, I want to say, ‘What do you think about it?’ instead of me just expecting an answer or answering the question or giving them too much information.

Cross-Case:Questioning Strategies

Consistently engaging and challenging: Utilized questioning to scaffold student learning, assess student knowledge, and challenge students to interact with science content at higher cognitive levels.

Old habits hard to break: Defaulted primarily to closed, lower-level questioning strategies during inquiry investigations.

All-or-none: Adopted an “all-or-nothing” approach to inquiry and her questioning patterns demonstrated that idea.

Cross-Case:Role of Students

Students must think and justify responses: Students’ desires to always be right made it challenging to get them to “think on their own” during inquiry learning.

Students need to become independent: Felt student independence is necessary for inquiry-based instruction to be effective.

Students must engage collaboratively: She saw students began thinking and actively seeking information from their peers during lab explorations.

Cross-Case:Content Background

Inquiry best in content forte’: All three clearly acknowledged, agreed, and displayed better inquiry in content area where teaching experience and content knowledge was greatest. Inquiry success not limited to specific domain of science. Anne was best in physics; Beth in biology; and Carla in chemistry.

Case 1:Anne

Case 2:Beth

Case 3:Carla

Cross-Case:Role of Teacher

Facilitator of learning: I need to truly understand what they’re talking about and to see if they’re just using words they’ve heard before without any true understanding of the science content.

Shifting roles from giver of knowledge to facilitator: Teaching using inquiry has helped me not to just give students all the answers.

Developing facilitator: If I ask a student a question now, I want to say, ‘What do you think about it?’ instead of me just expecting an answer or answering the question or giving them too much information.

Cross-Case:Questioning Strategies

Consistently engaging and challenging: Utilized questioning to scaffold student learning, assess student knowledge, and challenge students to interact with science content at higher cognitive levels.

Old habits hard to break: Defaulted primarily to closed, lower-level questioning strategies during inquiry investigations.

All-or-none: Adopted an “all-or-nothing” approach to inquiry and her questioning patterns demonstrated that idea.

Cross-Case:Role of Students

Students must think and justify responses: Students’ desires to always be right made it challenging to get them to “think on their own” during inquiry learning.

Students need to become independent: Felt student independence is necessary for inquiry-based instruction to be effective.

Students must engage collaboratively: She saw students began thinking and actively seeking information from their peers during lab explorations.

Cross-Case:Content Background

Inquiry best in content forte’: All three clearly acknowledged, agreed, and displayed better inquiry in content area where teaching experience and content knowledge was greatest. Inquiry success not limited to specific domain of science. Anne was best in physics; Beth in biology; and Carla in chemistry.

Case 1:Anne

Case 2:Beth

Case 3:Carla

Cross-Case:Role of Teacher

Facilitator of learning: I need to truly understand what they’re talking about and to see if they’re just using words they’ve heard before without any true understanding of the science content.

Shifting roles from giver of knowledge to facilitator: Teaching using inquiry has helped me not to just give students all the answers.

Developing facilitator: If I ask a student a question now, I want to say, ‘What do you think about it?’ instead of me just expecting an answer or answering the question or giving them too much information.

Cross-Case:Questioning Strategies

Consistently engaging and challenging: Utilized questioning to scaffold student learning, assess student knowledge, and challenge students to interact with science content at higher cognitive levels.

Old habits hard to break: Defaulted primarily to closed, lower-level questioning strategies during inquiry investigations.

All-or-none: Adopted an “all-or-nothing” approach to inquiry and her questioning patterns demonstrated that idea.

Cross-Case:Role of Students

Students must think and justify responses: Students’ desires to always be right made it challenging to get them to “think on their own” during inquiry learning.

Students need to become independent: Felt student independence is necessary for inquiry-based instruction to be effective.

Students must engage collaboratively: She saw students began thinking and actively seeking information from their peers during lab explorations.

Cross-Case:Content Background

Inquiry best in content forte’: All three clearly acknowledged, agreed, and displayed better inquiry in content area where teaching experience and content knowledge was greatest. Inquiry success not limited to specific domain of science. Anne was best in physics; Beth in biology; and Carla in chemistry.

Case 1:Anne

Case 2:Beth

Case 3:Carla

Cross-Case:Role of Teacher

Facilitator of learning: I need to truly understand what they’re talking about and to see if they’re just using words they’ve heard before without any true understanding of the science content.

Shifting roles from giver of knowledge to facilitator: Teaching using inquiry has helped me not to just give students all the answers.

Developing facilitator: If I ask a student a question now, I want to say, ‘What do you think about it?’ instead of me just expecting an answer or answering the question or giving them too much information.

Cross-Case:Questioning Strategies

Consistently engaging and challenging: Utilized questioning to scaffold student learning, assess student knowledge, and challenge students to interact with science content at higher cognitive levels.

Old habits hard to break: Defaulted primarily to closed, lower-level questioning strategies during inquiry investigations.

All-or-none: Adopted an “all-or-nothing” approach to inquiry and her questioning patterns demonstrated that idea.

Cross-Case:Role of Students

Students must think and justify responses: Students’ desires to always be right made it challenging to get them to “think on their own” during inquiry learning.

Students need to become independent: Felt student independence is necessary for inquiry-based instruction to be effective.

Students must engage collaboratively: She saw students began thinking and actively seeking information from their peers during lab explorations.

Cross-Case:Content Background

Inquiry best in content forte’: All three clearly acknowledged, agreed, and displayed better inquiry in content area where teaching experience and content knowledge was greatest. Inquiry success not limited to specific domain of science. Anne was best in physics; Beth in biology; and Carla in chemistry.

Case 1:Anne

Case 2:Beth

Case 3:Carla

Cross-Case:Conceptions of Inquiry

Solid understanding: consistent, well-aligned with NSES definition

Surface understanding: pre- and post responses lacked any specificity

Developing understanding: solid growth seen toward deeper understanding, which included understanding of Nature of Science

Cross-Case:Beliefs in Inquiry Practice

Maintained High Belief: motivation and implementation remained high despite lower perceived administrative support.

Decreased or stable Belief: reported amount of inquiry practice decreased, but practice remained constant suggesting better understanding not decreased amount

Increased Belief:both actual and ideal amount of inquiry increased, which was supported by observations

Cross-Case:Summary

Thriving: solid in terms of inquiry practice

Stuck: some growth but seems developmentally stuck in practice

Great improvement: motivated to use inquiry and grew significantly but still indicates a need for further support to continue changing.

Case 1:Anne

Case 2:Beth

Case 3:Carla

Cross-Case:Conceptions of Inquiry

Solid understanding: consistent, well-aligned with NSES definition

Surface understanding: pre- and post responses lacked any specificity

Developing understanding: solid growth seen toward deeper understanding, which included understanding of Nature of Science

Cross-Case:Beliefs in Inquiry Practice

Maintained High Belief: motivation and implementation remained high despite lower perceived administrative support.

Decreased or stable Belief: reported amount of inquiry practice decreased, but practice remained constant suggesting better understanding not decreased amount

Increased Belief:both actual and ideal amount of inquiry increased, which was supported by observations

Cross-Case:Summary

Thriving: solid in terms of inquiry practice

Stuck: some growth but seems developmentally stuck in practice

Great improvement: motivated to use inquiry and grew significantly but still indicates a need for further support to continue changing.

Case 1:Anne

Case 2:Beth

Case 3:Carla

Cross-Case:Conceptions of Inquiry

Solid understanding: consistent, well-aligned with NSES definition

Surface understanding: pre- and post responses lacked any specificity

Developing understanding: solid growth seen toward deeper understanding, which included understanding of Nature of Science

Cross-Case:Beliefs in Inquiry Practice

Maintained High Belief: motivation and implementation remained high despite lower perceived administrative support.

Decreased or stable Belief: reported amount of inquiry practice decreased, but practice remained constant suggesting better understanding not decreased amount

Increased Belief:both actual and ideal amount of inquiry increased, which was supported by observations

Cross-Case:Summary

Thriving: solid in terms of inquiry practice

Stuck: some growth but seems developmentally stuck in practice

Great improvement: motivated to use inquiry and grew significantly but still indicates a need for further support to continue changing.

• Teachers know that they need to be facilitating inquiry-based learning experiences in their classrooms.

• However, they are generally very uncertain how to bridge from awareness to competent practice.

• Uncertainty stems from :

• discrepancy in teachers’ conceptions of inquiry (Anderson, 2002), and

• inquiry’s complex, multifaceted nature can make inquiry a challenging method to implement (Vanosdall et al., 2007; Windschitl, 2008).

• The degree of growth was influenced by some or all of the following factors: Beliefs toward inquiry as an important instructional method Motivation to implement inquiry in their classrooms Support (administrative, peer, curriculum, PD) that they

receive to encourage its implementation Content knowledge in the subject being taught Amount of exposure and practice using the method

• Bring cohorts of teachers together in order to develop a support network/culture of inquiry

• Provide experiences that differentiate based on prior knowledge, understandings, and beliefs of the participants

Jeff C. Marshall marsha9@clemson.edu

Inquiry in Motion Website www.clemson.edu/iim

This material is based upon the work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant #DRL-0952160.

  Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this

material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.