This paper is a mixed-method exploration of the nature of guidance four middle school science teachers provided to their students during scientific inquiry discussions about sinking and floating. Videotapes of discussions were coded according to a framework of guidance in classroom talk and rated as high, low, or mixed. Discussions were also coded according to the conceptual level of the discussion with respect to a learning progression for relative density. These codes and measures of student learning were compared between four teachers: two with students who made higher learning gains through a unit, and two with students who made lower learning gains. Results indicate that the teachers who took a more active role in guiding students toward particular conclusions in discussions had students with higher learning gains, whereas the teachers of students with lower learning gains provided less guidance to their students. The cases presented in this paper highlight the importance of teachers taking an active role in helping students to construct their understanding, even in scientific inquiry settings.

Background & Theoretical Framework

The term “scientific inquiry” describes not only the way scientists study the natural world, but also the activities of students as they learn by participating in the process of science (National Research Council [NRC] 1996; 2001). While many descriptions exist of what students should be doing, the field lacks consensus on what effective scientific inquiry teaching looks like; the absence of a clear-cut description has contributed to a  perception of scientific inquiry in the US as a reform that is difficult to implement (Crawford, 2000; Windschitl, 2004).

Part of the difficulty may stem from two somewhat incongruous goals in US science education: we want students to simultaneously engage in a process of discovery and to learn a specific body of knowledge. Edwards & Mercer (1987) described the situation as a dilemma between “the notions of education as a ‘drawing out’ of the potential and ability of children, and…[the] requirement to inculcate pupils into a pre-existing culture of educated knowledge, thought, and practice” (p. 40). Yet in order for students to learn, some level of guidance must be provided by the teacher (Brown & Campione, 1994; Klahr & Nigam, 2004; Mayer, 2004; Shulman & Keislar, 1966). This paper addresses two questions:

- What patterns, if any, emerge in the amount of guidance teachers provide students during discussions at the end of scientific inquiry investigations?

- Do the patterns of guidance and conceptual levels addressed differ between teachers whose students make high or low learning gains?

Method

Context. The data analyzed in this paper were collected as part of a larger study that was embedded in a middle-school unit that involves students in a series of inquiry-based investigations to develop a relative-density based explanation of sinking and floating (Pottenger & Young, 1992).

Participants. Four teachers were selected on the basis of their students’ performance on a pre-post achievement test on sinking and floating administered as part of the larger study. While there was no difference between teachers on the pretest, there were significant differences on the post-test even when the pretest was controlled. Two teachers were selected whose students showed lower gains and two teachers with higher gains.

Sources of Data. Three major sources of data contributed to this paper: first, classroom videotapes prepared and submitted by each teacher; second, interviews and field notes, which helped to place the teacher in context and to capture each teacher’s own descriptions of his or her work; and third, measures of student learning, which exhibited the extent to which students in each classroom met the learning goals of the unit after each discussion.

            Analysis. The discussions at the three important investigations were transcribed and segmented according to shifts in discussion from one topic, idea, example, or piece of evidence, to another. Each segment was assigned a code according to the level of guidance provided by the teacher and the conceptual level of the discussion. Three raters reached 80% agreement on a 20% sample of the videotapes.

            The measures of student learning were assessments which provided students with an opportunity to predict what would happen in a particular experimental setting, and then asked students to reconcile the actual outcome with what they had observed. The assessments were scored on the basis of whether or not students provided the expected response at the appropriate point in the unit. Assessments were scored by multiple raters; average agreement was 91%. Differences between pairs of teachers were determined by split plot ANOVA with the pretest as a covariate.

Results

            The cross-cases analyses comparing the lower-gain students with the higher-gain students indicate that the higher gain teachers were more likely to guide students to provide higher levels of guidance than the lower gain teachers. In addition, the higher gain teachers were more likely to discuss concepts with students, no matter what the level; in contrast, the low-gain teachers restricted their conversation only to the concepts at the expected level given the placement of a lesson in the unit.  With an alpha level of 0.05, mean differences between teachers were statistically significant (F(3,79)=18.82, p<0.05).

Relevance of the study

The cases presented in this paper highlight the importance of teachers taking an active role in helping students to construct their understanding, even in scientific inquiry settings. The paper also suggests that current descriptions of scientific inquiry do not sufficiently describe the importance of teachers actively participating in students’ inquiry experiences. As long as we have clear content expectations for our students’ inquiry learning, teachers should take an active role in helping students to reach those expectations.

References

Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178.

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

Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common Knowledge: The Development of Understanding in the Classroom. London: Routledge.

Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The Equivalence of Learning Paths in Early Science Instruction: Effects of Direct Instruction and Discovery Learning. Psychological Science, 15(10), 661-667.

Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19.

National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2001). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Pottenger, F. M., & Young, D. B. (1992). The Local Environment: FAST 1. Foundational Approaches to Science Teaching (Second ed.). Honolulu: Curriculum Research and Development Group.

Schwab, J. J. (1962). The Teaching of Science as Enquiry. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Shulman, L. S., & Keislar, E. R. (Eds.). (1966). Learning by discovery: A critical appraisal. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company.

Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of "inquiry:" How preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 481-512.