TEACHERS UNDERSTANDINGS OF INQUIRY AND REPORTED

USE OF SCIENTIFIC PRACTICES: A SURVEY OF

NSTA CONFERENCE ATTENDEES
By
Ashley M. Young
B.A. Wheaton College, 2007
M.S. University of Maine, 2011

A THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science in Teaching

The Graduate School

The University of Maine
May 2013

Advisory Committee:
Daniel K. Capps, Assistant Professor of Science Education, Advisor
Jonathan T. Shemwell, Assistant Professor of Science Education and Cooperating
Assistant Professor of Physics
Craig A. Mason, Professor of Education & Applied Quantitative Methods

THESIS ACCEPTANCE STATEMENT

On behalf of the graduate committee for Ashley M. Young I affirm this

manuscript is the final and accepted thesis. Signatures of all committee members are on
file with the Graduate School at the University of Maine, 42 Stodder Hall, Orono, Maine.

Daniel K. Capps, PhD

Date

ii

LIBRARY RIGHTS STATEMENT

In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced

degree at the University of Maine, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available
for inspection. I further agree that permission for fair use copying of this thesis for
scholarly purposes may be granted by the Librarian. It is understood that any copying or
publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written
permission.

Signature:
Date:

TEACHERS UNDERSTANDINGS OF INQUIRY AND REPORTED

USE OF SCIENTIFIC PRACTICES: A SURVEY OF NSTA
CONFERENCE ATTENDEES
By Ashley Young
Thesis Advisor: Dr. Daniel K. Capps

An Abstract of the Thesis Presented

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Master of Science in Teaching
May 2013

Although national standards call for teaching science through inquiry, many
teachers do not understand what inquiry is. In an attempt to specify what is meant by
inquiry, the new Framework for K-12 Science Education articulates eight scientific
practices that are used by scientists. To gain a better understanding of highly motivated
science teachers knowledge of inquiry and reported use of scientific practices, we
surveyed 149, K-12 science teachers at the 2012 National Science Teachers Association
annual conference. Findings indicated the majority of these teachers had an
understanding of inquiry that did not align with descriptions of inquiry in reform
documents. Few teachers equated inquiry with the scientific practices from the
Framework, and those who did only mentioned a subset of the practices. Surprisingly,
most of these motivated teachers had not read key reform documents about inquiry.
Results also suggest teachers had difficulty distinguishing between some of the scientific
practices. Several factors were correlated with teachers reported use of inquiry,
including teachers background experience, such as if they have read national standards,

and school characteristics, such as if the curriculum they use supports inquiry-based
instruction. Results from this study can be used to inform the science education
community about highly motivated teachers understanding of inquiry and the use of
scientific practices in classrooms across the country. Further, they may help explain how
these practices are influenced by teacher knowledge and other background factors.
Finally, this research will provide important information for teacher education programs
and teacher professional development.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Daniel Capps, for his
guidance, encouragement, and support throughout this project. I am very thankful to
have gotten the opportunity to work with Dan on this exciting project. His guidance has
helped me develop my research and writing skills as well as helped me write and submit
a successful conference abstract and travel grants. I am also grateful to my two other
advisory committee members Dr. Jonathan Shemwell and Dr. Craig Mason for their
input and guidance. Jon was especially insightful in helping me think about the meaning
of my results, and Craig was invaluable in helping me with the statistics.
I would also like to thank the members of my research group Dan, Jon, Shirly
Avargil, Kendra Michaud, Sue Klemmer, and Kaylee Gurschick for listening to my
ideas and providing valuable feedback as I was analyzing my results. I am also very
appreciative to Jason Bakelaar who graciously volunteered to help me with the inter-rater
reliability. Additionally, special thanks to Michael Hubenthal and John Taber from IRIS
for allowing me to share their booth at the NSTA conference. I am also deeply indebted
to all the teachers who piloted my survey and provided me valuable feedback as well as
all the teachers who took time to take the survey and be interviewed by me at the NSTA
conference without you, this project would not have been possible.
Thank you to everyone in the MST program who has made my time here so
enjoyable. I am particularly grateful for all the opportunities I have had through the
program including TAing biology, working at Jackson Lab, and being a Teaching
Partner. In addition to the new friends I have made in the MST program, I am especially

iii

grateful for my friends from across campus in marine science for their friendship as well
as continued support as I started the whole process of writing a thesis for a second time.
Finally, I owe much to my former advisor from marine science Lee Karp-Boss
as without her, I probably would not be where I am today. Lee first introduced me to
science education the first summer I started working with her back in 2008, and ever
since then I knew I wanted to become a science teacher. As a research scientist, she
always had (and still has) such enthusiasm for education and outreach, and it has
certainly rubbed off on me!

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................. iii

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................x

CHAPTER 1. OVERVIEW & LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................1

1.1. Overview and Research Questions ....................................................................... 1
1.2. What is Inquiry? ...................................................................................................2
1.2.1. Perspectives on Inquiry from History ........................................................4
1.2.2. Influence of Reform Documents ................................................................6
1.3. Why Should Inquiry-Based Instruction be Used in the Classroom? ..................12
1.4. Challenges to Inquiry-Based Instruction ............................................................14
1.5. Teachers Understanding of Inquiry ...................................................................16
1.6. Teachers Use of Inquiry ....................................................................................17
1.7. Factors that Influence Teachers Understanding and Use of Inquiry .................19
1.8. Significance of Study .........................................................................................19
CHAPTER 2. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS .................................................22
2.1. Survey Instrument ..............................................................................................22
2.2. Study Participants ...............................................................................................26
2.3. Survey Piloting ...................................................................................................27

2.4. Survey Data Analysis .........................................................................................29

2.4.1. Range of Understanding ..........................................................................30
2.4.2. Perceived Challenges ...............................................................................35
2.4.3. Reported Use of Practices ........................................................................35
2.4.4. Relationship with Background Factors ....................................................36
2.5. Inter-rater Reliability ..........................................................................................38
2.6. Interviews ...........................................................................................................39
CHAPTER 3. RESULTS ..................................................................................................41
3.1. Range of Understanding about Inquiry ..............................................................41
3.1.1. Understanding of Inquiry and Themes Associated with Inquiry .............41
3.1.2. Origin of Understanding ..........................................................................43
3.1.3. Profile of Teachers Who Have a Low and High Understanding
of Inquiry .................................................................................................44
3.2. Perceived Challenges of Inquiry-Based Instruction ...........................................45
3.3. Reported Use of Scientific Practices ..................................................................46
3.4. Relationship with Background Factors ..............................................................49
3.4.1. Correlations with Understanding of Inquiry ............................................49
3.4.2. Correlations with Reported Use of Scientific Practices ...........................49
3.4.3. Multiple Linear Regression ......................................................................50
3.4.3.1. Teachers Background Characteristics ..........................................50
3.4.3.2. Teachers School Characteristics ..................................................52
3.4.3.3. Combination of Teachers Background and
School Characteristics ...................................................................53
vi

3.4.4. Analysis of Teachers Curriculum Type ..................................................53

3.4.5. Comparison of Teachers with a Higher Understanding of
Inquiry/ More Frequent Reported Use of Inquiry with Those
Teachers that had a Lower Understanding of Inquiry/ Less
Frequent Reported Use of Inquiry ..........................................................55
3.5. Interviews ...........................................................................................................56
3.5.1. Teachers Interpretations of Scientific Practice 1 ....................................58
3.5.2. Teachers Interpretations of Scientific Practice 6 ....................................60
CHAPTER 4. DISCUSSION ............................................................................................63
4.1. Range of Understanding about Inquiry ..............................................................63
4.2. Perceived Challenges of Inquiry-Based Instruction ...........................................65
4.3. Reported Use of Scientific Practices ..................................................................66
4.4. Relationship with Teachers Background Factors ..............................................68
4.5. Conclusions and Implications ............................................................................69
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................74
APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................81
Appendix A. Survey Instrument ................................................................................81
Appendix B. Code Book for Question #7 .................................................................87
Appendix C. Sample Interview Transcription ...........................................................95
BIOGRAPHY OF THE AUTHOR ...................................................................................98

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1.

Five essential features of classroom inquiry ..................................................9

Table 1.2.

Essential features of classroom inquiry and their variations .......................10

Table 1.3.

Eight scientific practices from A New Framework for K-12

Science Education ........................................................................................11

Table 2.1.

Possible challenges of enacting inquiry included in the survey ..................23

Table 2.2.

Statements about scientific practices included in the survey .......................24

Table 2.3.

Teacher background factors included in the survey ....................................25

Table 2.4.

Changes made to the survey after the piloting process ................................29

Table 2.5.

Inter-rater reliability results .........................................................................39

Table 3.1.

Distribution of teachers understanding of inquiry scores ...........................42

Table 3.2.

Percentage of teachers that included each scientific practice in

their answer to the understanding of inquiry question .................................42

Table 3.3.

Percentage of teachers that included each theme in their answer to

the understanding of inquiry question ..........................................................43

Table 3.4.

Methods through which teachers have learned about inquiry .....................44

Table 3.5.

Reported challenges of enacting inquiry-based instruction .........................46

Table 3.6.

Principal components analysis of the 21 statements from

the Framework .............................................................................................47

Table 3.7.

The bivariate and squared part correlations of the background

characteristics predictors with teachers reported use of
scientific practices ........................................................................................51

viii

Table 3.8.

The bivariate and squared part correlations of the school

characteristics predictors with teachers reported use of
scientific practices ........................................................................................53

Table 3.9.

Results of t-tests comparing teachers who use a commercial

curriculum and those who either developed their own or who have
no specific curriculum...................................................................................54

Table 3.10. Results of t-tests comparing teachers with a higher understanding /

more frequent reported use of inquiry and teachers with a lower
understanding / less frequent reported use of inquiry ..................................56
Table C.1.

Results from interviewee #10 ......................................................................97

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1.

Degree to which teachers have read national and state standards ..............44

Figure 3.2.

Average score of each scientific practice ...................................................48

CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW & LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1. Overview and Research Questions
Inquiry-based instruction, a type of instruction in which students are engaged in
open-ended, student-centered investigations often set in the context of real-life problems,
has been promoted by educational reform documents for nearly two decades as one of the
central tenants of good science teaching. As opposed to traditional teacher-led
instruction, when engaged in inquiry, students make observations, pose questions, plan
investigations, develop models, and interpret data. Although national and state standards
call for inquiry-based instruction, and there is a body of research that reports on the
benefits of inquiry-based instruction in improving science education, many teachers do
not understand what inquiry is and do not implement inquiry in their classrooms.
The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of the most
motivated K-12 science teachers knowledge and implementation of inquiry-based
science teaching. The research questions guiding the study were the following:

1. What is the range of motivated science teachers understanding of inquirybased science instruction and where might this understanding originate?
2. What are these teachers perceived challenges of enacting inquiry-based
instruction?
3. How often do these teachers report enacting scientific practices in their
classroom and is there a relation between their understanding and reported
classroom practice?
1

4. Is there evidence that teachers understanding and use of scientific practices

differ based on background factors (e.g. teaching experience, education, etc.)?

The subsequent sections of this chapter define the term inquiry, including
perspectives from the early 20th century to todays reform documents, discuss why
inquiry-based teaching methods should be used, outline challenges to enacting inquirybased instruction, summarize what we know about how often teachers use inquiry, and
describe factors that influence these practices. Finally, the importance of this study is
discussed.
1.2. What is Inquiry?
For the past two decades, science education reform documents in the United
States have advocated for the teaching of science as inquiry (American Association for
the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1989, 1993; National Research Council [NRC],
1996, 2000). Even though the idea of teaching science as inquiry is not new, there is still
much confusion about inquiry-based instruction (Abrams et al., 2008; Bybee, 2000).
Inquiry has been described as one of the most confounding terms within science
education (Settlage, 2003, p. 34).
Much of this confusion stems from the varying definitions of inquiry in the
science education literature, reform documents, and articles for teachers. Further
confusion stems from the fact that inquiry varies within academic subjects and that it
exists within several different contexts such as scientific inquiry, inquiry-based learning,
and inquiry-based teaching (Newman et al., 2004). Below are some perspectives on
inquiry in the classroom from various sources.
2

Suchman, developer of an inquiry-based teaching program called the Inquiry

Training Project, once said that inquiry is the way people learn when theyre left alone
(Suchman, 1966). In a book aimed for teachers, Hassard (2005) described inquiry as: a
term used in science teaching that refers to a way of questioning, seeking knowledge or
information, or finding out about phenomena (p. 20). In a book for both teachers and
researchers, Lederman (2004) wrote that inquiry was the process by which scientific
knowledge is developed (p. 308). In science education research articles, Edelson et al.
(1999) wrote that inquiry involves the pursuit of open-ended questions and is driven by
questions generated by the learners (p. 393) and Stoddart et al. (2000) referred to inquiry
as giving the students experience with the development of research questions and
testable hypotheses (p. 1222).
Abrams et al. (2008) described inquiry in terms of the various perspectives, or
goals, that different groups have for classroom inquiry. For instance, because inquiry is
supposedly similar to tasks that scientists perform, some believe that inquiry should be a
means to hone students scientific reasoning abilities. Others believe that inquiry should
be a means of interacting with competing knowledge claims and teachers should shift
their focus from doing more traditional hands-on science activities to developing
classroom activities that focus the students on constructing evidence-based rationales that
will be tested and critiqued by their peers and others (Abrams et al., 2008, p. xxii).
Finally, some also believe that inquiry should be a way to enculturate students into
science, thus helping them gain first hand knowledge of how scientific knowledge is
created and how to create that knowledge themselves (Abrams et al., 2008, p. xxiv).

Next is a more detailed discussion of the historical roots of inquiry and definitions from
current science reform documents.
1.2.1. Perspectives on Inquiry from History
The roots of inquiry as a key component of science education go back to John
Dewey in the early 20th century. Before Dewey, most educators viewed science as a set
body of knowledge that students should learn through teacher-led lectures (NRC, 2000).
Dewey, a leader in the progressive movement in education, believed science had been
taught 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, p. 122). Accordingly, he
thought schooling overemphasized science as a body of knowledge and believed that the
process or method of science was just as important to learn (Dewey, 1910) and wrote that
scientific inquiry is the active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or
supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further
conclusions to which it tends (Dewey, 1933, p. 9). To him, instruction should be
grounded in what the student already knows and should include the inquiry processes of
reason, evidence, inference, and generalization (Hassard, 2005). Deweys model is
student-centered, with the teachers main role as a facilitator/guide (Barrow, 2006).
After World War II, many people in the United States began to realize our
military and economic success was due to our scientific expertise. With the aim of
producing more scientists, during the late 1950s and early 1960s, two men Jerome
Bruner and Joseph Schwab advocated for the teaching of science by engagement in

inquiry. Bruner organized the Woods Hole conference of 1959 which brought together a
group of scientists and psychologists to discuss how to make science education more
engaging for students. He argued that students should experience doing science in order
for them to develop an attitude towards learning and inquiry (Abrams, 2008).
Schwab published articles on inquiry (or enquiry, as he spelled it) where he
advocated for teaching science by engagement in inquiry. He thought that the way
science was being taught did not reflect the methods of modern science: The formal
reason for a change in present methods of teaching the sciences lies in the fact that
science itself has changed. A new view concerning the nature of scientific inquiry now
controls research (Schwab, 1958). Along with Dewey, Schwab saw science as more of
a process than a body of knowledge, and sought to change traditional science curricula as
well as traditional student and teacher roles. Schwab encouraged science teachers to use
the science laboratory to teach science through inquiry by using different levels of
openness in their laboratories. To help science education more closely reflect the work of
scientists, he advocated that laboratories should lead rather than lag the classroom
phase. Instead of the laboratory serving as a place where students simply illustrated what
they already learned, laboratory manuals could be used to pose questions, leaving the
methods up to the students, or students could explore phenomena without questions,
instead asking their own questions, gathering evidence, and constructing explanations
(Dewey, 1960). In addition to using the laboratory, Schwab also proposed a new
approach called enquiry into enquiry in which students would be given reports to read
about scientific research and then have discussions about the problems, data, role of
technology, interpretation of data, and conclusions reached by the scientists (Barrow,
5

2006). In this method, students would learn about scientific knowledge, alternate
explanations, and the use of evidence.
The work of Dewey, Bruner, and Schwab had a major influence on curricular
materials such as the National Science Foundation sponsored curriculum of the 1970s
and the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (Alberts, 2000). Their views of science as
more of a process than a body of knowledge influenced many of the new materials by
placing a greater emphasis on learning the process of science than merely just mastering
the subject matter. Also, instead of having the class solely teacher-led, instructors were
encouraged to take into account students ideas and more laboratory experiences were
provided where students could pursue their own questions (NRC, 2000).
1.2.2. Influence of Reform Documents
The developers of the NSES had this historical perspective in mind as they began
to draft reform documents in the 1980s and 1990s. The reform movement began with
Project 2061, the long-term effort by the Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS) toward the goal of nationwide scientific literacy by the year 2061. Their first
document, Science for All Americans (AAAS, 1989), defined scientific literacy and what
students should know and be able to do by the time they graduate from high school
(Barrow, 2006). Their second document, Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy (AAAS,
1993) organized the topics into grade-level groupings. Both documents advocated for
integrating scientific inquiry and content and placed an emphasis on inquiry as the central
strategy for teaching science. Science for All Americans defined inquiry as being:

far more flexible than the rigid sequence of steps commonly depicted in
textbooks as the scientific method. It is much more than just doing
experiments, and it is not confined to laboratories. If students themselves
participate in scientific investigations that progressively approximate good
science, then the picture they come away with will likely be reasonably
accurate. But that will require recasting typical school laboratory work.
The usual high school science experiment is unlike the real thing. The
question to be investigated is decided by the teacher, not the investigators;
what apparatus to use, what data to collect, and how to organize the data
are also decided by the teacher (or the lab manual); time is not made
available for repetitions or, when things are not working out, for revising
the experiment; the results are not presented to other investigators for
criticism; and, to top it off, the correct answer is known ahead of time
(AAAS, 1993, p. 9).

The National Science Education Standards (NSES; NRC, 1996) also emphasized
the importance of inquiry. The NSES conceptualized inquiry in three ways (Anderson,
2002). The first, 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 definition of inquiry represents an understanding of
science as a process and is independent of instructional strategy. For example, students
should learn that investigations are undertaken for a wide variety of reasons such as to
explain new phenomena or to test conclusions of previous investigations (NRC, 1996).

In this category, there is some overlap between understanding scientific inquiry and the
nature of science (NOS). The second, inquiry learning, refers to an active learning
process in which students are engaged. Inquiry learning reflects the nature of scientific
inquiry and encompasses a range of activities. For example, students should be able to
design and conduct scientific investigations, formulate and analyze scientific
explanations, and communicate and defend a scientific argument (NRC, 1996).
The third use of inquiry, inquiry teaching, refers to a characteristic of a desired
form of teaching. The document states that inquiry into authentic questions generated
from student experiences is the central strategy for teaching science (NRC, 1996, p. 31)
and defines inquiry teaching as 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 (NRC, 1996, p. 23). While drawing parallels between
scientific and school science inquiry, the NSES defines five essential features of
classroom inquiry (Table 1.1; NRC, 2000):

Table 1.1. Five essential features of classroom inquiry (NRC, 2000).

Essential Feature
1. Learners are engaged by
scientifically oriented
questions

Description
Scientifically oriented questions lead themselves to empirical
investigation and can center on objects, organisms, and natural
events in the world. There are two primary kinds of scientific
questions why questions and how questions. Teachers
should help students focus their questions so that they can be
answered using investigations.

2. Learners give priority to

evidence, which allows them
to develop and evaluate
explanations that address
scientifically oriented
questions

As opposed to other ways of knowing such as personal beliefs

or religious values, science distinguishes itself through the use of
empirical evidence as the basis of explanations. Scientists
obtain evidence from observations and measurements taken in
natural settings or in the laboratory.

3. Learners formulate
explanations from evidence
to address scientifically
oriented questions

Scientific explanations are consistent with experimental and

observational evidence and are based on reason. They
provide new understanding by explaining, for example,
relationships or causes for effects.

4.Learners evaluate their

explanations in light of
alternate explanations,
particularly those reflecting
scientific understanding

Scientists always ask questions such as: does the evidence

support the proposed explanation? or, are there any apparent
biases or flaws in the reasoning connecting evidence and
explanation? With this feature of inquiry, students should
ensure that their explanations are consistent with accepted
scientific knowledge.

5. Learners communicate
and justify their proposed
explanations

In order to share their results and explanations, scientists have

to adequately communicate their work. Having students share
explanations can provide opportunities for others to ask
questions, examine evidence, and suggest alternate
explanations.

For instruction to be considered inquiry, it is not necessary for all five of these
features to be present. For example, a lesson that includes all five features of inquiry
would be labeled as full inquiry whereas a lesson with only some of these features
would be partial inquiry (NRC, 2000). Inquiry-based teaching can also vary in the

amount of structure that teachers provide for students (Table 1.2). In Table 1.2, the most
open variations of inquiry-based teaching are described in the left-hand column while the
most guided are described in the right-hand column. The more open the inquiry, the
more the responsibility shifts to the student. This continuum of open vs. guided inquiry
is similar to Schwabs laboratory exercises which varied in their degree of teacher
structure and guidance.
Table 1.2. Essential features of classroom inquiry and their variations (NRC, 2000).

Essential
Feature
Learner engages in Learner poses a
scientifically
question
oriented questions

Variations

Learner sharpens
or clarifies
question provided
by teacher,
materials, or other
source
Learner gives
Learner determines Learner directed to Learner given data
priority to evidence what constitutes
collect certain data and asked to
in responding to
evidence and
analyze
questions
collects it

Learner engages in
question provided
by teacher,
materials, or other
source

Learner formulates Learner formulates

explanations from explanations after
evidence
summarizing
evidence

Learner given
possible ways to
use evidence to
formulate
explanation
Learner given
possible
connections

Learner provided
with evidence

Learner provided
broad guidelines to
sharpen
communication

Learner given
steps and
procedures for
communication

Learner connects
explanations to
scientific
knowledge

Learner selects
among questions,
poses new
questions

Learner guided in
process of
formulating
explanations from
evidence
Learner directed
toward areas and
sources of
scientific
knowledge

Learner
independently
examines other
resources and
forms the links to
explanations
Learner
Learner forms
Learner coached in
communicates and reasonable and
development of
justifies
logical argument to communication
explanations
communicate
explanations

Learner given data

and told how to
analyze

More -------------- Amount of Learner Self-Direction ------------- Less

Less ---------------- Amount of Direction from Teacher or Material --------------- More
10

Recently, the NRC released A Framework for K-12 Science Education (NRC,
2012). This Framework will serve as the basis of the Next Generation Science Standards
(NGSS). The Framework contains three major dimensions that science education should
be built around science and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts that unify the
study of science and engineering throughout their common application across fields, and
core ideas in four disciplinary areas: physical sciences, life sciences, earth and space
sciences, and engineering, technology, and the applications of science. The first
dimension, derived from practices that scientists actually engage in as part of their work,
contains eight practices that define inquiry in science (Table 1.3).

Table 1.3. Eight scientific practices from A New Framework for K-12 Science Education
(NRC, 2012).
Practice
1 Asking questions and defining problems
2 Developing and using models
3 Planning and carrying out investigations
4 Analyzing and interpreting data
5 Using mathematics, information and computer technology, and computational thinking
6 Constructing explanations and designing solutions
7 Engaging in argument from evidence
8 Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information

The standards clearly articulate these eight practices in hopes of better specifying
what is meant by inquiry in science and the range of cognitive, social, and physical
practices that it requires (p. 2-5). For each practice, the standards explain what students
should be able to do in regards to each by the end of the 12th grade and briefly discuss
how students competence might progress across the different grade levels. We think of

11

the practices in the Framework not as a revolution, but rather as an evolution in the way
of looking at inquiry, as the Framework builds on former standards documents.
1.3. Why Should Inquiry-Based Instruction be Used in the Classroom?
In general, research supports inquiry as a pedagogical approach that produces
positive results (e.g. Haury, 1993; Shymansky et al., 1983; Wise and Okey, 1983;
Weinstein et al., 1982; Bredderman, 1983). Inquiry-based teaching methods draw upon
constructivist views of learning (Driver et al., 1994). Constructivism, founded on the
ideas of Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky (Fosnot & Perry, 2005) is a theory of learning and
development which suggests that humans actively build, or construct, new knowledge
based on the foundation of previous experiences. Inquiry-based teaching and the
constructivist learning theory promote many of the same objectives such as emphasizing
student construction of concepts by engaging in experiences (Abd-El-Khalick et al.
2004). Instead of memorizing facts directly from the teacher, inquiry-based methods
focus on this active student knowledge construction through experiences with scientific
questions, data collection, data analysis, and constructing explanations.
Inquiry-based instruction is thought to be a powerful vehicle to learn science
because it models how science is practiced and encourages students to develop their own
understandings. Research on student learning has found that in order for students to use
knowledge they have learned, they must understand the major scientific concepts and
develop abilities to apply this knowledge (Bransford et al., 1999). Students have prior
conceptions about natural phenomena and they formulate new knowledge by discovering
alternatives that appear to be more useful in essence, students reorganize the structure
of their thought processes (Driver et al., 1994). Authentic inquiry activities provide
12

students with the motivation to learn new concepts and to incorporate this new
understanding into their existing knowledge. Scientific inquiry matches research on
student learning:
inquiry focuses on a scientifically-oriented question, problem, or
phenomenon, beginning with what the learner knows and actively
engaging him or her in the search for answers and explanations. This
search involves gathering and analyzing information; making inferences
and predictions; and actively creating, modifying, and discarding some
explanations. As students work together to discuss the evidence, compare
results, and with teacher guidance, connect their results with scientific
knowledge, their understanding broadens (NRC, 2000, p. 120).
As examples, researchers have found that inquiry-based approaches increase
motivation (Patrick et al., 2009; Heywood & Heywood, 1992), enhance laboratory skills
and graphing and interpreting data (Mattheis & Nakayama, 1988), vocabulary knowledge
and conceptual understandings (Lloyd & Contheras, 1985), critical thinking (Narode et
al., 1987), science content understanding (Geier et al., 2008; Lynch et al., 2005), and
positive attitudes towards science (Rakow, 1986). Supporting this small sample of
examples, meta-analyses of research on inquiry-based teaching also report significant
improvements in student achievement, attitude, and process skills (Minner et al., 2010;
Shymansky et al, 1983; Shymansky et al., 1990). Recently, Granger et al. (2012)
conducted a large-scale, randomized-cluster experimental design comparing the effects of
student-centered and teacher-centered instruction on 4th and 5th graders understanding of

13

space-science concepts and found that learning outcomes were significantly higher for
students in the student-centered classrooms.
Inquiry-based teaching has also been shown to engage and motivate more
students than traditional methods, especially students from under-represented populations
in science. For example, significantly higher learning using inquiry-oriented approaches
has been documented in students with learning disabilities (Scruggs & Mastropieri,
1993), deaf students (Chiara, 1990) and language minority students (Roseberry et al.,
1990). In addition, in a study researching 3rd and 4th grade students abilities to complete
some inquiry tasks such as controlling variables and using measurement data and tools to
support their theories, Lee et al. (2006) found that inquiry-based teaching methods
especially enhanced these skills for older students and for students from less privileged
backgrounds.
1.4. Challenges to Inquiry-Based Instruction
Even though the research literature generally agrees that inquiry-based teaching
produces positive results, many teachers report significant challenges to teaching using
these methods. Lee and Houseal (2003) break down these challenges into external and
internal factors. Examples of external factors include lack of time (Newman et al., 2004),
lack of resources (Abell & McDonald, 2004), lack of school or community support (Lee
& Houseal, 2003), parental resistance (Anderson, 2002), student weaknesses in
systematically collecting, analyzing, and drawing conclusions from data (Kraijcik et al.,
1998), and classroom management issues (Roehrig & Luft, 2004).

14

An example of an internal factor is lack of teachers content and/or pedagogical

knowledge. Lack of science content knowledge can make it difficult for teachers to lead
inquiry-based lessons (Lederman & Neiss, 2000), and even if they have the necessary
content knowledge, lack of pedagogical knowledge can also cause a challenge (Shulman,
1986). Lack of content knowledge is especially a problem at the elementary level, where
many teachers have little formal science training (Kennedy, 1998). As discussed in the
previous section, because there are a variety of meanings among the science education
community associated with the term inquiry, teachers may have trouble figuring out how
to teach using inquiry-based methods. Also, teachers may have few operational models
of inquiry on which to draw, making them unsure of teacher and student roles (Crawford,
2000). A second example of an internal factor is teachers incompatible pedagogical
beliefs. Incompatible pedagogical beliefs about learning and teaching practices, such as
the preparation ethic, the feeling that teachers must provide enough coverage to prepare
students for the next level of schooling (Anderson, 2002), can also impact how teachers
use inquiry-based instruction (Roehrig & Luft, 2004).
Although many studies have identified the challenges listed above, there is
disagreement on which are the largest challenges. For example, Edelson et al., (1999)
identified five significant challenges to implementing inquiry learning as student
motivation, accessibility of investigation techniques (if students can perform the tasks the
investigation requires), student science content background knowledge, and the ability for
students to organize and manage complex, extended activities. In a more recent article,
Quigley et al., (2011) identified the four major challenges facing teachers as: measuring
the quality of inquiry, using discourse to improve inquiry (students cannot become
15

engaged if they are not able to talk science), pursuing the goal of teaching content
through inquiry methods, and learning how to effectively manage an inquiry classroom.
Even though this list of challenges may seem daunting, many of the above studies also
discussed ways teachers could minimize these challenges in their classrooms.
1.5. Teachers Understanding of Inquiry
In science, scientists often generate their own research questions, investigate
many possible variables, invent complex procedures, consider whether their results can
be applied to other situations, and manage results from multiple studies (Chinn &
Malhotra, 2002). When asked to describe the most important aspects of scientific
investigations, a sample of 32 science faculty members valued the role of scientific
literature, scientific questions, pattern finding, and puzzle solving (Harwood et al., 2002).
Classroom inquiry involves different cognitive processes and core attributes than inquiry
carried out by scientists, and as a result, inquiry tasks in the classroom are different than
tasks and processes employed by scientists (Wong & Hodson, 2008; Chinn & Malhotra,
2002). Thus, in conceptualizing classroom inquiry, we draw on the constructs of
classroom inquiry described above, including the essential features (NRC, 1996) or
scientific practices (NRC, 2012).
Research on teachers has found that their understanding of classroom inquiry is
often incomplete. For example, Demir and Abell (2010) investigated the meaning of
inquiry held by beginning teachers and found their views did not match those described
in the 2000 NRC document, Inquiry in the National Science Education Standards.
Teachers often left out evidence, explanation, justification, and communication in their
answers, with one teacher thinking student choice determined what made an activity
16

inquiry-based, and another thinking inquiry-based activities were unstructured and

student-driven. In a recent study examining the teaching practices and views of inquiry
of 26 well-qualified 5th-9th grade teachers from across the country, Capps and Crawford
(2012) found that few teachers from a group of highly motivated and well-qualified
teachers could describe what inquiry-based instruction really was. Most equated inquiry
with hands-on learning. Brown et al. (2006) reported that college professors had an
incomplete view of classroom inquiry they stressed the role of questioning and
collecting data, but often did not mention other features such as explanation and
justification. Further, they tended to have an all-or-nothing view, thinking inquiry was
completely student-driven, and also thought it was unstructured and time-consuming, and
hence more appropriate for upper-level science majors than for introductory students or
non-majors.
1.6. Teachers Use of Inquiry
There are few research studies that specifically address how often teachers use
inquiry-based methods in their classrooms, though the few studies published consistently
indicate that it is not happening very often. One of the earliest studies on the topic
reported that inquiry-based teaching was not widespread even in teachers using
curriculum materials developed specifically to foster inquiry teaching (Stake and Easley,
1978). In another older study, Welch et al., (1981) found that teachers were not using
inquiry as it was described in reform documents. In terms of content focus on inquiry,
Weiss (2003) found that 15% of lessons in elementary schools focused on science
inquiry, while only 2% of lessons in grades 9-12 did.

17

In addition to finding that few well-qualified 5th-9th grade teachers could describe
what inquiry really was, Capps and Crawford (2012) also found that few teachers
demonstrated an ability to teach science as inquiry. They reported that most inquiry was
teacher-initiated, and the most common aspects of inquiry were basic abilities such as
using tools and mathematics in science class. When asked in an interview if they thought
they were teaching science as inquiry, most teachers believed they were. Marshall et al.,
(2007) administered a 58-item survey to 1,222 K-12 mathematics and science teachers in
a large district to measure their beliefs about and use of inquiry in the classroom. Higher
than previous studies, they found elementary school teachers reported using inquirybased practices 39% of the time, and middle and high school teachers reported using
inquiry-based practices between 32 and 34% of the time. Most teachers in the study
believed that they should be using inquiry more than they actually reported.
In another recent article, Asay and Orgill (2010) analyzed articles published in
The Science Teacher from 1988-2007 for explicit evidence of features of inquiry using
the five essential features of inquiry described in Inquiry and the National Science
Education Standards (NRC, 2000). They found that few articles described full inquiry,
and gathering and analyzing evidence were much more prominent in the articles than
were other features of inquiry. During the 10 year period, 82% of the articles involved
data or evidence gathered by students or provided by the teacher, and in 64% of the
articles this data was analyzed, but the other features of inquiry (questioning, explaining,
and communicating) were each present in less than 25% of the articles.

18

1.7. Factors that Influence Teachers Understanding and Use of Inquiry

Previous studies have identified multiple factors that influence teachers abilities
to implement inquiry-based instruction as well as how often they teach using inquirybased methods. Lotter et al. (2007) found four core conceptions that guided teachers use
of inquiry-based practices: their conceptions of science (e.g. if they viewed science as a
set body of knowledge or placed more emphasis on science process skills), students (e.g.
if they viewed their students as passive learners or more as problem solvers), the purpose
of education (how they thought education should prepare students for life e.g. through
learning content knowledge, instilling a good work ethic or teaching students how to
think), and effective teaching practices. In their study on the views and practices of
teachers, Capps and Crawford (2012) found no single factor that accounted for teachers
who were able to teach science through inquiry (such as scientific research experience),
but they did note that all the teachers who demonstrated an ability to teach science as
inquiry had abundant experience teaching and learning science. Marshall et al. (2009)
identified four variables that related to the amount of time teachers engaged students in
inquiry: grade level taught, content area taught, level of support received, and selfefficacy for teaching inquiry. They did not find that gender, prior education, or work
experiences were correlated with inquiry-based instruction.
1.8. Significance of Study
The current study was conducted to gain a better understanding of motivated
elementary, middle, and high school science teachers understanding and reported use of
inquiry-based science instruction. To do this, we surveyed and interviewed science

19

teachers from across the country at the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA)
Conference in Indianapolis, IN from March 29th to April 1st, 2012.
Although other researchers have surveyed science teachers understanding of
inquiry before, most of these studies were conducted in a single school district or
measured the impact of an intervention on teachers understanding of inquiry. Little is
known, however, about teachers understanding of inquiry nationwide. To fill this gap in
the literature, this study surveys teachers from a large geographic distribution and with a
wide variety of backgrounds. In addition to surveying teachers from across the country,
this study also differs from previous studies in its definition of inquiry. While many
researchers have defined inquiry and conducted studies using the NRCs five essential
features of classroom inquiry (e.g. Anderson, 2002; Capps & Crawford, 2012; Crawford,
2000; Luft, 1999), the current study incorporates the new NRC science frameworks
(2012), specifically defining inquiry by the eight scientific practices (Table 2.2). Finally,
teachers attending the NSTA Annual Conference are typically well-prepared and highlymotivated science teachers, thus, surveying this population gives us a best-case scenario
if teachers are using inquiry in their classrooms.
Keys and Bryan (2001) called for research on teachers beliefs, knowledge, and
practices of using inquiry-based instruction. The data from this study helps to answer
this call and can be used to inform the science education community, teachers, and
teacher educators about how and how often inquiry is being implemented in classrooms
across the country and how these practices are influenced by teacher knowledge and
other background factors. Research on teachers understanding about inquiry can reflect
what may be realistically accomplished by reforms on a large scale and can help inform
20

the reform process. In addition, results from this research can help better support
teachers in understanding and enacting reform-based teaching approaches and can help
guide the development of appropriate teacher education and professional development
programs.

21

CHAPTER 2
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
2.1. Survey Instrument
We developed a written survey containing four sections: 1) teachers
understanding of inquiry, 2) origin of knowledge regarding inquiry, 3) perceived
challenges of enacting inquiry, and 4) reported use of scientific practices. Below are
descriptions of each of these sections. See Appendix A for the complete survey.
To learn about teachers understanding of inquiry, we asked teachers to respond
to the following open-ended question: If you had to tell a group of parents, at an openhouse night, what are the most important aspects of inquiry-based science teaching, what
would you tell them? We assessed the origin of teachers knowledge of inquiry by
asking them where they learned about inquiry. Included in the choices were school-based
workshops, outside workshops, reading articles about inquiry, college classes, and/or
peers, and by asking them to rate the extent to which they have read four pertinent
national and state documents about inquiry. Teachers rated how much of the document
they had read using a 5-point Likert scale from 1, Ive not read it, to 5, Ive read all of it.
To learn about challenges of enacting inquiry, we selected items based on a literature
review (see Table 2.1) and asked teachers to rate how much they perceived each
statement to be a challenge to enacting inquiry-based science teaching in their classroom.
Again, we used a Likert scale, from 1, not a challenge, to 5, major challenge.

22

Table 2.1. Possible challenges of enacting inquiry included in the survey.

a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l

Possible Challenge
Lack of student motivation
Students are too young
Students lack the ability
My insufficient content knowledge
My insufficient pedagogical knowledge
Classroom management issues
Not enough time
It takes too much preparation time
Class size is too large
Assessing students
Finding inquiry-based lessons
Availability of materials

To learn about reported use of scientific practices in the classroom, the survey
included 21 statements from A Framework for K-12 Science Education (NRC, 2012).
We chose three statements related to each practice (practice #5, related to mathematics,
was not included). Teachers were asked to rate how often they had students do each
using a 7-point Likert scale from 1, never, to 7, during every class (Table 2.2).
Statements were taken directly from the Framework. However, due to time constraints,
only three statements from each practice were chosen (out of 5-6). Several of these
statements were shortened while still retaining the essence of the original statement.

23

Table 2.2. Statements about scientific practices included in the survey.

Practice 1. Asking questions and defining problems
1. Ask questions about the natural and human-built worlds
2. Formulate and/or refine questions that can be answered empirically in a science classroom
3. Ask questions about features, patterns, or contradictions noted in data sets
Practice 2. Developing and using models
1. Construct drawings or diagrams as representations of events or systems (e.g. to represent
what happens in the water in a puddle as it is warmed by the sun)
2. Represent and explain phenomena with multiple types of models (e.g. represent molecules with
bond diagrams or 3-D models)
3. Discuss the limitations and precision of a model
Practice 3. Planning and carrying out investigations
1. Decide what data are to be gathered, what tools are needed to do the gathering, and how
measurements will be recoreded
2. Decide how much data are needed to produce reliable measurements and consider any
limitations on the precision of the data
3. Plan experimental or field-research procedures, identifying relevant independent and
dependent variables, and when appropriate, the need for controls
Practice 4. Analyzing and interpreting data
1. Analyze data systematically, either to look for patterns or to test whether the data are
consistent with an initial hypothesis
2. Use spreadsheets, databases, tables, charts, graphs, and statistics to collate, summarize, and
display data and to explore relationships between variables
3. Evaluate the strength of a conclusion that can be inferred from any data set, using appropriate
grade-level mathematics and statistical techniques
Practice 6. Constructing explanations and designing solutions
1. Construct their own explanations of phenomena using their knowledge of accepted scientific
theory and linking it to models and evidence
2. Use scientific evidence and models to support or refute an explanatory account of a
phenomenon
3. Identify gaps or weaknesses in explanatory accounts
Practice 7. Engaging in argument from evidence
1. Construct a scientific argument showing how the data support the claim
2. Identify possible weaknesses in scientific arguments, appropriate to the students' level of
knowledge, and discuss them using reasoning and evidence
3. Recognize the major features of scientific arguments are claims, data and reasons, and
distinguish these elements in examples
Practice 8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information
1. Use words, tables, diagrams, and graphs to communicate their understanding or to ask
questions about a system under study
2. Read grade level appropriate scientific text with tables, diagrams, and graphs and explain the
ideas being communicated
3. Produce written and illustrated text or oral presentations that communicate their own ideas and
accomplishments

24

In addition to these four sections, the survey contained questions related to

demographics, education, work experience, etc. to determine if there were particular
factors that might help explain teachers understanding and reported use of inquiry (Table
2.3).

Table 2.3. Teacher background factors included in the survey.

Category
Demographics:

Items
Gender
Primary grades taught (elementary, middle, high)
Type of school (Public, private)
% of students receiving free or reduced lunch

Education:

Undergraduate/graduate school(s) attended

Major(s)
Year(s) graduated
If they wrote a thesis

Experience:

Years of teaching experience

# of years of work experience related to science (industry, government, other
lab or field experience not related to a university degree
Participation in a Research Experience for Teachers (RET)
Approximate # of professional workshops or conferences they have attended in
the last 5 years (science focused, science teaching methods focused)

Curriculum:

Freedom in designing their curriculum

Their curriculum's support for inquiry-based instruction
Type of curriculum (teacher developed, commercial, or no specific curriculum)

Self-confidence: Their confidence in using inquiry

Their knowledge of their discipline's content standards
School
characteristics:

Importance of test preparation in their school

School administration's support for inquiry-based instruction

Several of the Likert-scale items from the self-confidence and school characteristics
categories (questions 11 a, b, c, f, and h; see Appendix A) came from a survey developed

25

by Marshall et al. (2009) to gather information about K-12 science and math teachers
beliefs about and use of inquiry in the classroom.
2.2. Study Participants
The study used a mixed-methods approach combining quantitative and qualitative
data (Creswell, 2009). We collected both survey and interview data from the
participants, K-12 teachers attending the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA)
Conference in Indianapolis, IN in 2012. The NSTA conference provides an avenue for
science educators to connect with one another and share their experiences as well as learn
new science content and teaching strategies. We chose participants attending this
conference for two reasons: (1) the national conference for NSTA attracts teachers of all
ages and many ethnic groups from across the country, providing a diverse sample
population, and (2) teachers attending this conference are typically highly-motivated as
they must have the desire attend and expand their professional growth. We received
approval for the study from the University of Maines Institutional Review Board prior to
the piloting process (described below) and travelling to the conference.
To recruit participants, we secured space in the exhibition hall in a booth run by
IRIS (Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology), an education and public
outreach organization that aims to advance awareness and understanding of seismology
and earth science. We asked teachers who approached the IRIS both or who walked in
the aisle in front of the booth to participate in the study with a statement such as:

Hi, are you a science teacher? Im a graduate student at the University of

Maine, and Im wondering if you would be willing to participate in a
26

research study I am conducting as part of my Masters thesis? The study

is on science teachers perceptions and practices of inquiry-based science
teaching. If you choose to participate, you will be given a written survey
that will take approximately 10 minutes to complete
As a further incentive to participate in the study, teachers had the chance to win one of
four, $25 Amazon.com gift cards. To be eligible for the drawing which occurred at the
end of the conference teachers had to hand in their completed survey and enter their
email address on a separate piece of paper. Teachers who agreed to complete the survey
were directed to complete the survey at a nearby table and return it to the IRIS booth.
We recruited interview participants by looking to see if respondents checked a box on the
back of their completed survey asking if they would be willing to participate in a fiveminute interview about the topics raised in the survey. Interviews were conducted onthe-spot and were recorded after asking the teachers permission. In total, 152 teachers
completed the survey and 11 completed interviews. Surveys completed by student
teachers and college-level teachers were excluded from the analysis, bringing the final
number of analyzed surveys to 149.
2.3. Survey Piloting
The survey was piloted with 21, K-12 teachers. The piloting teachers were each
asked to take the survey and provide written comments and feedback on the questions.
Additionally, we conducted interviews with seven of these teachers to obtain more detail
about their interpretation of the questions. Goals for the piloting process included: (1)
ensuring face validity, making sure teachers understood and interpreted the questions

27

correctly, (2) ensuring there was a desired level of variation within each question, and (3)
checking correlations between questions to identify and remove redundant questions.
We recruited eight piloting volunteers from teachers currently participating in the
University of Maine Physical Sciences Partnership, specifically teachers in the 9th grade
task force, a group of 15 teachers working together to evaluate a set of candidate physical
science curricula. Additionally, we recruited seven teachers from the Fossil Finders
project, a collaboration between Cornell University and the Paleontological Research
Institute in Ithaca, New York that focuses on learning about evolutionary concepts
through an authentic inquiry-based investigation of Devonian-aged fossils. Finally, we
also asked six local teachers to pilot the survey. Because the majority of the 21 piloting
teachers were motivated teachers who regularly took part in long-term professional
development programs and attended science teacher conferences, we felt they were a
good analog for our target population of teachers at the NSTA conference. Table 2.4
describes the changes made to the survey after the piloting process.

28

Table 2.4. Changes made to the survey after the piloting process.
Survey section
Understanding
of inquiry

Changes
Changed open-ended question prompt from "parent" to a "group of parents" and
included a larger box in which teachers could write their answers to give them a
better idea of how long of an answer was desired
Took out a series of 5 questions on common mythos about inquiry (taken from
the INSES) for space purposes and because some teachers had trouble with them

Challenges:

Added in the challenge: "finding inquiry-based lessons"

Took out the section on benefits of inquiry-based instruction for space purposes
and because there was not much varibility in responses

Reported
enactment of
inquiry:

Added in the phrase "on average thoughout the year" to be more explicit about
this question because teachers reported having trouble thinking of average
answers based on the subject, class, week, etc.
Changed the upper category on the Likert scale of this question from 'daily' to
'during every class period' because some teachers had trouble with the original
scale if their class only met 2-3 times a week

Background
information:

Added in examples of science and science teaching methods workshops as

some teachers had trouble differentiating between the two. Also lowered the
range on this question from 10 years to 5 years as many teachers found it difficult
to remember how many events they have been to in the past 10 years
Added in the phrase "not including summer experiences" in the prior work
experience question
Re-worked the educational background section for formatting to make it easier
to fill out
Got rid of the question "the faculty at my school is supportive of inquiry-based
science instruction" as the responses were very similar to the question "my school's
administration is supportive of inquiry-based science instruction"

2.4. Survey Data Analysis

Statistical analysis of data was performed using SPSS version 20.0 (SPSS, Inc.,
Chicago, IL, USA). All statistical values were considered significant at the p level of
0.05.

29

2.4.1. Range of Understanding

To report on the range of science teachers understanding of inquiry, we coded the
open-ended survey question about teachers understanding of inquiry (question 13) by
looking for evidence of the eight scientific practices described in the Framework (NRC,
2012). Teachers were given an overall understanding of inquiry score based on the
following criteria: 0 if the response did not include any scientific practices, 1 if the
response included one practice, 2 if the response included two practices, and 3 if the
response included three or more practices. Descriptions of coding for the scientific
practices follow (the entire code book, including examples, can be found in Appendix B):

1. Asking questions and defining problems The teacher indicated that they have their
students ask questions about the natural or human built worlds, distinguish scientific
from nonscientific questions, or ask questions about features or patterns in
observations they make.

2. Developing and using models The teacher indicated that they have their students
construct or use models as representations of events or systems, or they have their
students discuss the limitations and precision of a model.

3. Planning and carrying out investigations The teacher indicated that they have their
students plan investigations, such as by deciding what data are to be gathered, what
tools are necessary to do the gathering, or identifying necessary controls, and/or carry
out investigations.

30

4. Analyzing and interpreting data The teacher indicated that they have their students
analyze/interpret data such as looking for patterns, making tables, charts, or graphs,
and/or recognizing when data are in conflict with expectations.

5. Using math and technology1 The teacher indicated that they have their students use
mathematics and/or computer technology in analyzing data.

6. Constructing explanations The teacher indicated that they have their students
construct explanations of phenomena using their knowledge of accepted scientific
theory. To count, the answer had to specifically state that students constructed an
explanation of their observations or a phenomenon, not simply answered a question.

7. Engaging in argument from evidence The teacher indicated that they have their
students construct scientific arguments showing how the data support the claim
and/or identify and discuss weaknesses in scientific arguments using reasoning and
evidence.

8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information The teacher indicated that

they have their students communicate their ideas and accomplishments about a
system under study by producing oral presentations or written words, graphs, tables,
or diagrams, and/or reading scientific text and explaining the ideas being
communicated. To count, the answer had to include or imply that the students are

Statements from this practice were not included in the survey, but it was looked for when coding this
question.

31

communicating information in written or spoken form, not just simply speaking or

conversing in general.

In addition to scoring teachers responses to question 13 between 0 and 3, we also

noted common themes used to describe inquiry-based teaching as we read through
teachers responses. We evaluated the noted themes for overlap, and after combing some
together, ended up with 12 distinct categories. Teachers answers to this question were
also coded for these 12 themes, described below:

A. Exploring/ discovering The teacher indicated that inquiry-based science teaching

involves students exploring or discovering science topics, concepts, or ideas.
Alternatively, they indicated that inquiry-based science teaching avoids excessively
detailed, cookbook like procedures, instead being more of an open-ended approach
where students guide their own learning.

B. Constructing knowledge The teacher indicated that inquiry-based science teaching

allows students to construct their own knowledge about science processes and/or
content, for example by students facing or confronting misconceptions. Answers in
which constructing knowledge was not explicit such as figuring out answers or
drawing conclusions were not counted.

C. Hands-on The teacher indicated that inquiry-based science teaching is a hands-on

approach or involves hands-on activities.
32

D. Student-centered The teacher indicated that in inquiry-based science teaching,

students are not told what to do or think by the teacher, and instead ask their own
questions and/or design and carry out their own investigations.

E. Preparation for future school/work/life The teacher indicated that inquiry-based

science teaching is helpful for teaching students skills that will help prepare them to
succeed in work, life, or school after their K-12 education.

F. Relevancy The teacher indicated that inquiry-based science teaching makes learning
science content and processes relevant for students by connecting their learning to
real world problems.

G. Teamwork The teacher indicated that in inquiry-based science teaching, students

often work in groups, and/or it helps students develop the ability to problem solve as
a group.

H. Engagement in science The teacher indicated that inquiry-based science teaching

helps to promote the active engagement of students in activities, labs, problem
solving, etc, and/or increases student interest and motivation to learn about science.

I. Deeper understanding of science content knowledge The teacher indicated that

inquiry-based science teaching reinforces science standards, helps students better

33

understand science content, and/or helps students remember information and/or

concepts longer than with other methods of teaching.

J. Critical thinking/ problem solving skills The teacher indicated that inquiry-based
science teaching allows students to access and practice higher-level thinking skills
such as critical thinking and problem solving and/or the fact that inquiry-based
science teaching does not involve memorization of facts.

K. Models what real scientists do The teacher indicated that inquiry-based science
teaching allows students to more closely model the work of real scientists, allowing
them to experience the sciences the way that scientists to, and allowing them to learn
to think like a scientist.

L. Okay to get the wrong answers The teacher indicated that in inquiry-based science
teaching, it is okay for students not to know the answers and to be wrong or to learn
by trial and error; it is okay if the conclusion is different from the initial prediction
because the main goal is more the thinking process than getting the correct answer.

We also compared teachers who received a score of 0 for the understanding of

inquiry variable (n = 88) to teachers who received a score of 2 or 3 (n = 34) to determine
if there were differences in where they learned about inquiry. Specifically, we used a chi
square test between these two groups of teachers and the five options in the question
(school workshop, college classes, outside workshop, peers, and reading articles).
34

Additionally, we compared the total number of places in which the two groups learned
about inquiry using an independent samples t-test. To further determine if there were
differences in the number of places in which teachers with different understanding of
inquiry scores learned about inquiry, we also compared teachers who received 0s on
this scale to only the teachers who received 3s (n = 13). Finally, to determine where
teachers views about inquiry originated, we compiled frequency data from the
appropriate questions.
2.4.2. Perceived Challenges
To learn about teachers perceived challenges of using inquiry-based instruction,
we compiled frequency data from this question.
2.4.3. Reported Use of Practices
To establish how often teachers reported enacting scientific practices in their
classroom, we created a single variable (reported use of scientific practices) based on
responses to the 21 scientific practice questions. To compute this variable, we used both a
reliability analysis and a principal components analysis (PCA). First, we conducted a
reliability analysis to see if the triplicate statements for each practice could be averaged
together into a single value. Cronbachs alphas were greater than .70 for each triplicate,
and so seven summary values were created based on the mean value for each. The PCA
of the seven values resulted in five factors with eigenvalues greater than one (more
details of the groups will be provided in the results), and so we computed the summary
variable as equal to the mean of the five scales. Pearson correlations between the 5
groups were significant at the 0.01 level, providing justification for the single variable.

35

To decide if there were differences in how often teachers reported using the five
practices, we completed a repeated measures ANOVA between the means of each. To see
if there was a relationship between teachers understanding of inquiry and their reported
use of scientific practices, we performed a linear regression between these two variables.
2.4.4. Relationship with Background Factors
To determine if teachers understanding and/or reported use of inquiry differed
based on background factors, we conducted linear regressions between these variables
and the surveyed demographic factors (Table 2.3). The resulting factors with statistically
significant correlations to teachers reported use of inquiry were then broken into two
categories teachers background characteristics and school characteristics. We
conducted a multiple regression analysis with each to evaluate how well these
characteristics predicted teachers reported use of scientific practices in the classroom.
For the teachers background characteristics category, the predictors were the average
amount they had read the three national documents, their science lab or field experience,
if they had learned about inquiry-based teaching methods in school workshops, and if
they had learned about inquiry-based teaching methods by reading articles. For the
school characteristics category, the predictors were the importance of high stakes test
preparation in the teachers school, if the teacher has a lot of freedom in designing their
curriculum, and if the curriculum they use supports inquiry-based instruction. We also
conducted a multiple regression analysis with all seven measures as predictors to
determine if school characteristics offered additional predictive power beyond that
contributed by knowledge of teachers background.

36

In addition to the above analyses, we chose to investigate teachers curriculum

type (commercial, teacher developed, or no specific curriculum) more closely. First, we
conducted a one-way ANOVA to determine if there was a relationship between
curriculum type and teachers understanding or reported use of inquiry. Second, we used
independent sample t-tests to compare the understanding and reported use of inquiry
between teachers who used commercial curricula and those who either developed their
own or who had no specific curriculum. We also used t-tests between these two groups
to investigate whether teachers with certain characteristics (e.g. total years taught, work
experience, etc.) tended to develop their own curriculum.
Lastly, we profiled teachers with the highest understanding and reported use of
inquiry to see where they stood in regards to various background factors and compared
them to the teachers with the lowest understanding and reported use of inquiry. To do
this, we coded the group of teachers with a higher understanding / higher reported use of
inquiry as those who both scored a 2 or 3 on the open-ended question (question #7) as
well as scored above the 75th percentile on their reported use of inquiry (question #13).
We coded the teachers with a lower understanding / lower reported use of inquiry as
those who scored a 0 on question #7 and below the 25th percentile on question #13.
Based on these criteria, we identified 9 teachers with a higher understanding/ higher
reported use of inquiry and 18 teachers with a lower understanding/ lower reported use of
inquiry. After identifying the two groups, we then used independent sample t-tests to
compare their background characteristics.

37

2.5. Inter-rater Reliability

We performed an inter-rater reliability to verify our coding of the scientific
practices in the open-ended question about teachers understanding of inquiry. The
coders were the author and another graduate student in the Master of Science in Teaching
program. The second coder volunteered for this task and was familiar with the
Framework, but was not involved in research concerning scientific practices or other
themes in the Framework. For training, we asked the coder to read the scientific
practices section in the Framework as well as the code book with the descriptions and
examples of each scientific practice (Appendix B). They then coded all 149 teacher
responses for the eight scientific practices. We calculated Inter-rater reliability as the
percent agreement between the author and coder for each scientific practice.
After this first iteration, percent agreement for each practice was above 90%
except for practice 6, which was 77%. In a discussion with the second coder after
finishing, he explained he had trouble with practice 6 because he thought that simply by
answering a question, students must also be constructing an explanation. Looking
through the surveys he coded as practice 6, it was apparent that he coded many answers
with the phrases finding answers, answering questions, or solving problems. To
clarify this practice, we added the following sentence to the code book: to count, the
answer had to specifically state that students constructed an explanation of their
observations or a phenomenon, not simply answered a question.
Approximately two months after the first iteration, we asked the same coder to recode all 149 responses, but this time coding only for practice 6. Before beginning, we
discussed practice 6 with the coder again, and had him read the revised version of the
38

practice in the code book. After this second iteration, inter-rater reliability was 99% for
this practice (Table 2.5).

Table 2.5. Inter-rater reliability results.

Scientific
%
Practice Agreement
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

92%
100%
90%
97%
100%
99%
96%
98%

2.6. Interviews
We conducted short interviews, approximately five-minutes long, to: (1)
corroborate teachers understanding of inquiry and (2) determine if they correctly
interpreted the meaning of individual statements in question 13, which asked how often
teachers had their students do various statements from the Framework. During the
interview, we first asked teachers to describe an inquiry-based science lesson they
recently taught and thought went well in their classroom (this prompt was based on a
similar prompt used by Ireland et al., 2011). Next, after scanning through their responses
on question 13, we chose 1 or 2 statements that the teacher had rated highly (meaning
they reported they had their students do it fairly often). We then read teachers the
statement and asked them to describe what that practice might look like in their
classroom.

39

All interviews were transcribed in full. To determine if teachers knowledge of

inquiry was consistent with what was found in the survey, we coded answers to the first
interview question asking them to describe an inquiry-based lesson in their classroom
by looking for evidence of the 8 scientific practices as well as the 12 themes. To
determine if teachers interpreted the meaning of the statements chosen from question 13
consonant with the Framework, we coded their answers as a simple yes or no depending
on whether they generally interpreted the statement as it is written in the Framework.
See Appendix C for a sample interview transcription and analysis.

40

CHAPTER 3
RESULTS
3.1. Range of Understanding about Inquiry
In this section, we report teachers understanding of inquiry scores, common
themes about inquiry that arose in their responses, and methods through which they
learned about inquiry. We also describe results comparing the methods and numbers of
places which teachers with a lower and higher understanding of inquiry score have
learned about inquiry.
3.1.1. Understanding of Inquiry and Themes Associated with Inquiry
Teachers views on inquiry generally did not align with the most recent reform
documents. Nearly 60% of NSTA attendees surveyed did not equate inquiry with even
one scientific practice from the Framework (Table 3.1). Only 9% of teachers included
three or more practices in their description of inquiry. These results were surprising
given the practices are quite similar to aspects of inquiry described in the NSES (NRC,
1996). Considering most NSTA attendees are a group of motivated science teachers
invested in improving their teaching, and the fact that there were many sessions and
workshops about inquiry during the conference, we expected them to have more
informed understandings of inquiry.

41

Table 3.1. Distribution of teachers understanding of inquiry scores.

Score % of sample
0
59%
1
18%
2
14%
3
9%

The most common scientific practices described in teachers responses were

asking questions and defining problems and planning and carrying out investigations
(described by 32% and 22% of teachers respectively; Table 3.2). Less than 10% of
teachers wrote about any of the other practices. The most common themes in teachers
descriptions of inquiry were student-centered (25% of respondents),
exploring/discovering (15%), and critical thinking/problem solving skills (13%; Table
3.3).

Table 3.2. Percentage of teachers that included each scientific practice in their answer to
the understanding of inquiry question.
Scientific
% of
Practice Description
respondents
1
Asking questions and defining problems
32%
2
Developing and using models
1%
3
Planning and carrying out investigations
22%
4
Analyzing and interpreting data
8%
5
Using mathematics, information and computer technology,
0%
and computational thinking
6
Constructing explanations and designing solutions
3%
7
Engaging in argument from evidence
7%
8
Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information
2%

42

Table 3.3. Percentage of teachers that included each theme in their answer to the
understanding of inquiry question.

Theme
Student-centered
Exploring/discovering
Critical thinking/ problem solving skills
Hands-on
Models what real scientists do
Engagement in science
Deeper understanding of science content knowledge
Relevancy
Preparation for future school/work/life
Okay to get the wrong answers
Teamwork
Constructing knowledge

% of
respondents
25%
15%
13%
9%
9%
8%
7%
5%
3%
3%
3%
2%

3.1.2. Origin of Understanding

The most common methods through which teachers learned about inquiry-based
science teaching were reading articles (69% of respondents) and outside workshops
(67%; Table 3.4). Nearly every teacher read most or all of their state science standards,
but fewer had thoroughly read national documents e.g., only 45% had read most or all of
the NSES (1996), and only around a quarter had read most or all of Inquiry in the
National Science Education Standards ([INSES] 2000) or the new Framework (Figure
3.1). The lack of familiarity with national documents is troubling given two out of three
of these documents are now over a decade old. Furthermore, most state standards are
generally brief and do not provide the level of detail about inquiry as do the national
documents. For instance, INSES gives a rich description of the multiple roles of inquiry,
clarifies the vision of inquiry in the standards, and provides illustrative examples of
inquiry in the classroom at different grade levels.

43

Table 3.4. Methods through which teachers have learned about inquiry.
Where teachers have
learned about inquiry
Reading articles
Outside workshop
College classes
School workshop
Peers

% of teachers
69%
67%
50%
46%
40%

Percentage of surveyed teachers

80%
NSES (1996)

70%

INSES (2000)
60%

NRC Framework (2012)

State standards

50%
40%

30%
20%
10%
0%
Haven't read it

Have skimmed
through it

Have read some Have read most Have read all of

sections
sections
it

Figure 3.1. Degree to which teachers have read national and state standards.

3.1.3. Profile of Teachers Who Have a Low and High Understanding of Inquiry
The chi square test indicated no statistically significant difference between
teachers who received a score of 0 and those who scored either a 2 or 3 on question 13 in
terms of where they learned about inquiry, 2(4) = 0.076, p = 0.999. Additionally, there
was no significant difference between teachers who received a score of 0 (n = 88) versus
44

only those teachers who received a score of 3 (n = 13), t(99) = -1.099, p = 0.275. There
was also no significant difference between teachers who received a score of 0 and those
who scored either a 2 or 3 (n = 34) in the total number of places they learned about
inquiry, t(120) = -0.222, p = 0.825. Thus, teachers with a higher understanding of inquiry
did not learn about inquiry through different methods or a larger number of places than
teachers with a lower understanding.

3.2. Perceived Challenges of Inquiry-Based Instruction

The largest challenge to implementing inquiry-based science instruction was
insufficient classroom time 57% of teachers thought this was either a large or major
challenge (Table 3.5). Over 30% of teachers also found availability of materials and lack
of student motivation to be large or major challenges. In contrast, over half of teachers
surveyed did not find their own content or pedagogical knowledge or students age as a
challenge to implementing inquiry-based instruction. Therefore, the surveyed teachers
were confident in their abilities as teachers and felt students of any age could successfully
engage in inquiry.

45

Table 3.5. Reported challenges of enacting inquiry-based instruction.

Challenge
Not enough classroom time
Availability of materials
Lack of student motivation
Finding inquiry-based lessons
It takes too much prep time
Class size is too large
Assessing students
Students lack the ability
Classroom management issues
My insufficient content knowledge
My insufficient pedagogical knowledge
Students are too young

Percent of teachers responding

Slight or
Large or
Average
Not a
moderate
major
response challenge challenge challenge
3.5
3.0
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.5
2.3
2.1
1.7
1.7
1.5

11%
18%
20%
18%
18%
25%
17%
31%
36%
56%
56%
66%

33%
46%
50%
57%
58%
46%
67%
52%
54%
37%
36%
32%

57%
36%
31%
25%
24%
30%
16%
17%
11%
7%
7%
2%

3.3. Reported Use of Scientific Practices

A principal components analysis conducted on teachers reported use of scientific
practices resulted in five factors (with eigenvalues greater than 1) as opposed to the seven
practices used in the survey. Three of the factors corresponded to three of the practices in
the Framework (i.e., Asking questions and defining problems, developing and using
models, and obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information), while the other two
factors included two scientific practices each. Specifically, practices 3 & 4 (planning and
carrying out investigations and analyzing and interpreting data) grouped together as well
as practices 6 & 7 (constructing explanations and designing solutions and engaging in
argument from evidence; Table 3.6).

46

Table 3.6. Principal components analysis of the 21 statements from the Framework.
Item Description
1a Ask questions about the natural and human-built worlds
1b Formulate and/or refine questions that can be asked empirically in a
science classroom
1c Ask questions about features, patterns, or contradictions noted in
data sets
2a Construct drawings or diagrams as representations of events or
systems (e.g. to represent what happens to the water in a puddle as it
is warmed by the sun)
2b Represent and explain phenomena with multiple types of models (e.g.
represent molecules with bond diagrams or 3-D models)
2c Discuss the limitations and precision of a model
3a Decide what data are to be gathered, what tools are needed to do the
gathering, and how measurements will be recorded
3b Decide how much data are needed to produce reliable measurements
and consider any limitations on the precision of the data
3c Plan experimental or field-research procedures, identifying relevant
independent and dependent variables and, when appropriate, the need
for controls
4a Analyze data systematically, either to look for patterns or to test
whether the data are consistent with an original hypothesis
4b Use spreadsheets, data bases, tables, charts, graphs, statistics, and
mathematics to collate, summarize, and display data and to explore
relationships between variables
4c Evaluate the strength of a conclusion that can be inferred from any
data set, using appropriate grade-level mathematics and statistical
techniques
6a Construct their own explanations of phenomena using their
knowledge of accepted scientific theory and linking it to models and
evidence
6b Use scientific models and evidence to support or refute and
explanatory account of a phenomenon
6c Identify gaps or weaknesses in explanatory accounts
7a Construct a scientific argument showing how the data support a claim
7b

7c
8a
8b
8c

Identify possible weaknesses in scientific arguments, appropriate to

the students' level of knowledge, and discuss them using reasoning
and evidence
Recognize that the major features of scientific arguments are claims,
data and reasons and distinguish these elements in examples
Use words, tables, diagrams, and graphs to communicate their
understanding or to ask questions about a system under study
Read grade level appropriate scientific text with tables, diagrams, and
graphs and explain the ideas being communicated
Produce written and and illustrated text or oral presentations that
communicate their own ideas and accomplishments

% Variance
Eigenvalue

Factor
1
2
3
4
5
.229 -.037 .039 .865 .052
.117 .385 .247 .700 .058
.257 .494 .184 .560 .149
.097 .117 .577 .419 .387

.311 .193 .825 .066 .110

.388 .235 .750 .175 .001
.155 .798 .215 .101 .144
.223 .850 .156 .084 .110
.308 .719 .220 .002 .151

.411 .723 .130 .185 -.028

.282 .740 .014 .171 .141

.409 .749 .056 .102 .136

.685 .364 .089 .260 .099

.739 .316 .187 .194 .087

.786 .194 .262 .116 .152
.786 .332 .157 .118 .125
.825 .273 .192 .117 .200

.816 .292 .205 .112 .091

.352 .342 .292 -.006 .454
.069 .179 .093 -.030 .821
.202 .061 .032 .211 .822
47.69 8.04 7.05 6.39 4.94
10.01 1.69 1.48 1.34 1.04

47

A repeated measures ANOVA showed mean reported use of practices differed

significantly between the five groups, F(4, 32.622) = 46.920, p < 0.001. Post hoc tests
using the Bonferroni correction revealed that use of scientific practices 1, 2, and 8 (Table
2.2) were not statistically different from one another, but reported use of these practices
were significantly different then practices 3 & 4 and 6 & 7. Practices 3 & 4 and 6 & 7
were not statistically different from one another (Figure 3.2). As a way of providing
context to these numbers, this translates to on average 64% of teachers reported having
their students do practices 1, 2, and 8 at least 2-3 times a month while only 28% of
teachers reported having their students do practices 3, 4, 6, and 7 at least 2-3 times a
month. Teachers reported use of scientific practices did not correlate with their
understanding of inquiry, r(147) = 0.048, p = 0.557.

7
Average score

4.35

4.44

4.17
3.3

3.59

3.56

3.46

4
3
2
1
0

Scientific practice
Figure 3.2. Average score of each scientific practice. Error bars represent 1 standard
deviation.

48

3.4. Relationship with Background Factors

In this section, we report the correlations between teachers demographic factors
and their understanding and reported use of inquiry as well as the multiple regression
analysis of teachers background and school characteristics. Subsequently, we report the
results of our analysis of teachers curriculum type and our comparison of teachers with a
high/low understanding and reported use of inquiry.
3.4.1. Correlations with Understanding of Inquiry
Teachers understanding of inquiry was significantly negatively correlated with
total years of teaching less experienced teachers had a higher understanding, r = 0.205,
F(1,147) = 6.429, p = 0.012. This was interesting given that, compared to more
experienced teachers, less experienced teachers had: (1) lower self-confidence in teaching
through inquiry, r = 0.179, F(1,146) = 4.811, p = 0.030; (2) read less of the NSES, r =
0.216, F(1, 146) = 7.174, p = 0.008, and INSES, r = 0.169, F(1,145) = 4.242, p = 0.041;
and (3) found several factors more challenging when enacting inquiry in their classroom
including lack of student motivation, r = 0.189, F(1,145) = 5.384, p = 0.022; students too
young, r = 0.199, F(1,146) = 6.050, p = 0.015; class size is too large, r = 0.230, F(1,147)
= 8.245, p = 0.005; finding inquiry-based lessons, r = 0.187, F(1,146) = 5.272, p = 0.023;
and availability of materials, r = 0.204, F(1,146) = 6.321, p = 0.013. However, more of
these less experienced teachers reported learning about inquiry-based science teaching in
their college classes than the more experienced teachers.
3.4.2. Correlations with Reported Use of Scientific Practices
Multiple factors were significantly correlated with teachers reported use of
scientific practices including having read more of the NSES, r = 0.351, F(1,146) =
49

20.478, p < 0.001, the INSES, r = 0.349, F(1,145) = 20.058, p < 0.001, or the Framework,
r = 0.374, F(1,145) = 23.516, p <0.001. Having read state standards did not significantly
correlate with teachers reported use of scientific practices, r = 0.141, F(1,144) = 2.928, p
= 0.089. Other significant factors included teachers higher self-confidence in teaching
inquiry, r = 0.309, F(1,146) = 13.673, p < 0.001; if high stakes test preparation was less
important in their school, r = 0.177, F(1,146) = 4.710, p = 0.032; having a lot of freedom
in designing their curriculum, r = 0.240, F(1,146) = 8.898, p = 0.003; if the curriculum
they use supported inquiry-based instruction, r = 0.280, F(1,144) = 12.232, p = 0.001;
having more outside lab or field experience, r = 0.218, F(1,92) = 4.591, p = 0.035; and if
they learned about inquiry in a school workshop, r = 0.198, F(1,147) = 5.997, p = 0.016;
or by reading articles, r = 0.215, F(1,147) = 7.124, p = 0.008. Teachers who thought that
too much preparation time or finding inquiry-based science lessons were challenges to
implementing inquiry also reported less frequent use of scientific practices, r = 0.270,
F(1,147) = 11.564, p = 0.001 and r = 0.286, F(1,146) = 13.049, p <0.001.
3.4.3. Multiple Linear Regression
Following are results of the multiple regression analyses of teachers background
and school characteristics.
3.4.3.1. Teachers Background Characteristics
The linear combination of teachers background characteristics was significantly
related to teachers reported use of scientific practices, R2 = 0.302, F(4, 88) = 9.521, p <
0.001, indicating that nearly a third of the variance of teachers reported use of scientific
practices could be accounted for by the linear combination of these background
characteristics. In Table 3.7, we present indices to denote the relative strength of the
50

individual predictors. All bivariate correlations between the teachers background

characteristics and their reported use of scientific practices were positive, and all four
were statistically significant (p < 0.05). The part correlations between the average
amount teachers had read the three national documents and their reported use of scientific
practices as well as if they had learned about inquiry in school workshops and their
reported use of scientific practices were significant. Laboratory or field experience
approached statistical significance (p = 0.051).
Of the teachers background characteristics, the measure of the average amount of
reading the three national documents was most strongly related to teachers reported use
of scientific practices. Supporting this conclusion is the strength of the bivariate
correlation between this measure and the reported use of scientific practices index, which
was r(91) = 0.48, p < 0.001, as well as the comparable correlation partialling out the
effects of the other three background characteristics, which was R2 = 0.20, t(88) =
4.848, p < 0.001.

Table 3.7. The bivariate and squared part correlations of the background characteristics
predictors with teachers reported use of scientific practices.
Correlation between
Squared part correlation
each predictor and between each predictor and
teachers' reported use teachers' reported use of
of scientific practices
scientific practices

Predictor variable
Average amount of reading the three
national documents

Beta
0.45

Science lab or field experience

0.18

0.22*

0.032

Learned about inquiry-based teaching in a

school workshop

0.19

0.22*

0.036*

Learned about inquiry-based teaching by

reading articles

0.04

0.20*

0.0019

p < 0.05

**

p < 0.01

***

***

0.48

p < 0.001

51

***

0.20

3.4.3.2. Teachers School Characteristics

The linear combination of school characteristics was significantly related to
teachers reported use of scientific practices, R2 = 0.111, F(3, 142) = 5.91, p = 0.001,
indicating that approximately 11% of the variance of teachers reported use of scientific
practices can be accounted for by the linear combination of school characteristics
measures. In Table 3.8, we present indices to denote the relative strength of the
individual predictors. Two of the bivariate correlations between school characteristics
and teachers reported use of scientific practices were positive, while one the
importance of high stakes test preparation in the teachers school was negative. All
three indices were statistically significant (p < 0.05).
Of all the school characteristics, the measure of whether the curriculum they use
supports inquiry-based instruction was most strongly related to teachers reported use of
scientific practices. Supporting this conclusion is the strength of the bivarate correlation
between this measure and the use of scientific practices index, r(144) = 0.28, p < 0.001,
as it being the only school characteristic statistically significant after controlling for the
effect of the other variables, R2 = 0.033, t(144) = 2.316, p = 0.022.

52

Table 3.8. The bivariate and squared part correlations of the school characteristics
predictors with teachers reported use of scientific practices.
Correlation between Squared part correlation
each predictor and
between each predictor
teachers' reported use and teachers' reported use
Beta of scientific practices
of scientific practices
- 0.64
- 0.18*
0.014

Predictor variable
Importance of high stakes test
preparation in their school
If they have a lot of freedom in
designing their curriculum

0.73

0.25**

0.013

If the curriculum they use supports

inquiry-based instruction

0.13

0.28

***

0.033

p < 0.05

**

p < 0.01

***

p < 0.001

3.4.3.3. Combination of Teachers Background and School Characteristics

A multiple regression analysis was also conducted with all seven measures as
predictors. The linear combination of the seven measures was significantly related to
teachers reported use of scientific practices, R2 = 0.41, F(7,83) = 8.17, p < 0.001.
Teacher background was a stronger predictor than school characteristics, R2 = 0.11,
F(3,83) = 5.02, p = 0.003. Based on these results, although teachers background
predicts more of their reported use of scientific practices, school characteristics do offer
additional predictive power beyond that contributed by a knowledge of teachers
background.
3.4.4. Analysis of Teachers Curriculum Type
An one-way ANOVA determined there was no statistically significant difference
in understanding of inquiry between teachers using commercial, teacher developed, or no
specific curriculum, F(2,134) = 0.087, p = 0.916. Similarly, there was no statistically

53

significant difference in reported use of inquiry between these three groups F(2,134) =
0.586, p = 0.558. As determined by independent sample t-tests, there was also no
statistically significant difference in understanding of inquiry or reported use of inquiry
between teachers using commercial curricula and those who either develop their own or
who have no specific curriculum, t(135) = -0.036, p = 0.971 and t(135) = 0.419, p =
0.676. Only one factor grade level taught was significantly different between
teachers with commercial curricula and those who either develop their own or who have
no specific curriculum, t(135) = -2.031, p = 0.044; Table 4.9). In this case, teachers who
used a commercial curriculum tended to teach lower grade levels than those who either
developed their own or who have no specific curriculum.

Table 3.9. Results of t-tests comparing teachers who use a commercial curriculum and
those who either developed their own or who have no specific curriculum. DF = degrees
of freedom.

Factor
Total years taught
Grades taught
Average amount teacher has read the national documents
Amount teacher has read the state standards
Self-confidence in teaching using inquiry
Work experience - Industry
Work experience - Government
Work experience - field/lab
Total number of places teacher has learned about inquiry
Undergraduate science major
Masters sciecne major

54

DF
135
135
135
134
135
86
79
86
135
119
88

t
0.707
-2.031
1.004
0.461
0.716
-1.724
0.245
0.253
0.624
-1.673
0.13

p
0.481
0.044
0.317
0.646
0.475
0.088
0.807
0.801
0.534
0.097
0.897

3.4.5. Comparison of Teachers with a Higher Understanding of Inquiry/ More

Frequent Reported Use of Inquiry with Those Teachers that had a Lower
Understanding of Inquiry/ Less Frequent Reported Use of Inquiry
The only statistically significant difference between teachers with a higher
understanding of inquiry/ more frequent reported use of inquiry and those with a lower
understanding of inquiry/less frequent reported use of inquiry was if they have read the
Framework, t(25) = -2.408, p = 0.024; Table 3.10. In particular, teachers with a higher
understanding/ more frequent reported use of inquiry had a mean of 3.3 for this question
while teacher with a lower understanding/ less frequent reported use of inquiry had a
mean of 2.0. Put into context, 56% of teachers with a higher understanding/ more
frequent reported use of inquiry have read most or all the Framework compared to only
17% of teachers with a lower understanding/ less frequent reported use of inquiry.
Further, 56% of teachers with a lower understanding/ less frequent reported use of
inquiry have not read this document at all compared to only 11% of teachers with a
higher understanding/ more frequent reported use of inquiry.

55

Table 3.10. Results of t-tests comparing teachers with a higher understanding/ more
frequent reported use of inquiry and teachers with a lower understanding/ less frequent
reported use of inquiry. DF = degrees of freedom.

Factor
DF
t
p
Grades taught
25 0.202 0.842
% of students receiving free or reduced lunch
25 0.692 0.495
Total years taught at K-12 level
25 1.594 0.123
Degree to which teacher has read the NSES
25 -1.806 0.083
Degree to which teacher has read the INSES
24 -1.866 0.071
Degree to which teacher has read the Framework
25 -2.408 0.024
Degree to which teacher has read the state standards
25 -1.441 0.163
Self-confidence in teaching using inquiry
25 -1.37 0.185
Understanding of the content standards
25 -1.342 0.194
Degree to which high stakes test preparation is important in the school 25 0.262 0.795
Degree to which administaration is supportive of inquiry
25 0.462 0.648
Degree of freedom in designing curriculum
25 -1.777 0.088
Degree to which teachers' curriculum supports inquiry
25 -0.306 0.762
Work experience - industry
17 -0.657 0.520
Work experience - lab/field
17 -1.468 0.186
Total work experience
19 -1.519 0.148
If learned about inquiry in a school workshop
25 <0.000 1.000
If learned about inquiry in college classes
25 -0.536 0.597
If learned about inquiry through outside workshops
25 -1.458 0.162
If learned about inquiry through peers
25 0.577 0.569
If learned about inquiry by reading articles
25 -1.667 0.108
Total # of places teacher has learned about inquiry
25 -1.413 0.170
Undergraduate science major
19 -0.702 0.491
Masters science major
16 -0.222 0.827

3.5. Interviews
There was little evidence that the interviewed teachers knowledge of inquiry
differed considerably than was measured by the survey. Around half the teachers did not
mention any additional practices in the interview compared to the survey, and an
additional quarter only mentioned one additional practice. The most common themes
that arose in lessons described by teachers were the ideas of student-centered (45% of
56

lessons), exploring/discovering (36%), and hands-on (27%). For example, two of the
teachers described lessons that did not involve any inquiry, but were rather more handson station labs where their students got to explore with various materials:
Teacher: Right now, we just did a lab the other day uh we're studying
energy transformations so we set up kind of a station lab and let the kids
play with tuning forks and candles and hot water and stuff like that...
explored... we gave them parameters but then we also said, what about
this? And we just kind of let them go. (Grades 6-8, March 30, 2012)
The most common scientific practices mentioned by teachers were practices 3
(n=2), 4 (n=3), and 8 (n=4). Interestingly, only 2% of teachers wrote about practice 8 in
the survey compared to nearly 40% in the interview, which may suggest that teachers
understand more about this practice than was measured by their written responses.
Because we only completed 11 interviews and because each teacher was only
asked to explain 1- 2 statements that they rated higher than others (indicating they asked
their students to do them more often), we collected more data for some practices than
others. Out of the 7 scientific practices for which teachers rated their frequency of use in
the survey, we obtained data from at least 3 teachers for 4 of the practices practices 1,
2, 6, and 8. We only obtained data from one teacher for practices 3 and 4, and no
teachers were asked about practice 7, so we were unable further analyze these practices.
Out of the four practices for which we collected more data, teachers
interpretations of two of the practices were well-aligned with those articulated in the
Framework (practices 2 and 8). For example, all the teachers who were asked to explain
57

statements from practices 2 and 8 (n = 3 and n = 4, respectively) described engaging their

students in these practices in a way that was aligned with at least some of the intentions
of the Framework. Teachers interpretations of the other two (practices 1 and 6) were not
as well aligned - only half interpreted statements from these practices similarly to how
they are described in the Framework. Following is a more in-depth discussion of
teachers interpretations of practices 1 and 6. It is also important to note, though, that the
statements we asked the teachers to explain were selected because they were the ones
they reported doing most in the classroom. Consequently, it is very likely that teachers
would have a more difficult time interpreting statements they reported doing less
frequently.
3.5.1. Teachers Interpretations of Scientific Practice 1
The ability to ask well-defined questions is an important component of science
literacy. For Practice 1 Asking questions and defining the problems the Framework
states that students should have experience asking well-formulated questions that can be
answered empirically and be able to recognize scientific from non-scientific questions. It
explains that scientific questions can arise from curiosity (e.g., Why are there seasons?)
or can be inspired by a models prediction or attempts to extend a model to theory (e.g.,
How does the particle model of matter explain the incompressibility of liquids?).
In terms of progression across grades, the Framework states that students at any
grade level should be able to ask questions about the texts they read, the features of the
phenomena they observe, and the conclusions they draw from scientific investigations.
As students progress though grades, though, their questions should become more relevant

58

and focused, and they should be able to pose questions that, for example, request relevant
empirical evidence or seek to refine a model or explanation. Thus, simply asking
questions about the natural world is a good way for students to learn how to ask
questions, but these questions should be refined as they get older.
In the interview, the two teachers who were requested to explain the statement
ask questions about the natural and human built worlds interpreted it in accordance
with the Framework. The two teachers who interpreted statements further from the
Framework were requested to explain the statements, ask questions about features,
patterns, or contradictions noted in data sets and formulate and/or refine questions that
can be asked empirically in a science classroom. As an example of the latter statement,
one teacher interpreted it as more of a way for him to see gaps in student knowledge:
Teacher: Okay, so again, with that question of the day that they have, um,
basically they come in with their knowledge and presenting that new topic,
that's when I get to see where the gaps are with questions that they have
and um, like I said at the end of class, they present those things, and
they're open to questions from the class. And then we'll take that as kind
of it's called an exit slip, so before they leave, they need to kind of answer
that question but then cite where they got it from (Grades 6-8, April 1,
2012).
Comparing the three statements from practice 1, it appears the two statements
teachers interpreted further from the Framework are more highly complex than the
statement both teachers interpreted closer to the Framework. Simply asking questions

59

about the natural and human built world is important, but we argue more universal than
the other two more inquiry-related statements.
3.5.2. Teachers Interpretations of Scientific Practice 6
For Practice 6 Constructing explanations and designing solutions students
demonstrate their understanding of scientific ideas by developing explanations of
phenomena based on observations they have made or models they have developed. In
early grades, the Framework describes that students should be encouraged to develop
explanations of their observations during investigations. For example, based on
observations of dissected owl pellets, students should be able to provide an explanation of
owl eating habits. Later on, when students conduct more sophisticated investigations,
they should be able to incorporate resulting observations from isolated variables into their
explanations. By high school, students should also use mathematics or simulations to
construct an explanation for a phenomenon.
In the interviews, two of the four teachers interpreted statements in accordance
with the Framework. These teachers were asked to interpret the statements: construct
their own explanations of phenomena using their knowledge of scientific theory and
linking it to models and evidence and identify gaps or weaknesses in explanatory
accounts. One teacher also seemed to misinterpret this second statement, though,
thinking that it was about having students confront their misconceptions:
Teacher: A lot of times, uh, what we'll do in pre lab questions specifically
with the students in pre-lab discussions, is try to deliberately, uh, almost
mislead them in what they think is going to happen, what could occur,
60

trying to uncover their misconceptions up front. So then they have to deal

with those when we come to the conclusion of the activity. So that's what
we do a lot of (Grades 9-12, March 30, 2012).
The other teacher who misinterpreted this practice was not asked about a specific
statement, but was instead asked to describe how he had students do this practice in
general. In his answer, he explained how he had his students answer pre-class questions,
but they were not in the context of an investigation:
Teacher: In my classroom, I want them to have a consistent routine,
especially of reflection and like pre-thinking about something so when
they come in the classroom they have a writing prompt that they do every
day in their science notebook. Sometimes it's about what we've been
studying and sometimes it's more anticipatory. But, I ask them to answer
the question regardless of whether or not they feel qualified or know the
right answer... I don't want them to have to feel like they can't put an
answer down and so they always write an answer and they always write a
really good answer whether it's just creative or whether it's actually correct
or if they have some prior knowledge or they're just kind of feeling around
for what some possible answers might be.

Interviewer: So what kind of questions might you ask them for that?

Teacher: So um, do you and I see the same color red when we see red? So
that might be one, that was one when we were using some
61

spectrophotometry equipment and uh, or what would it be like if you were

a bee and you could see ultraviolet light - how would your world be
different? Or, some people say that when dogs smell they're actually
seeing with their nose... you know, what would it be like if you saw the
world with your nose? And so, it's kind of to generate interest but also to
have kids reflect on what they already know related to the topic (Grades 68, March 31, 2012).

62

CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION
4.1. Range of Understanding about Inquiry
In this project, we used a 19-question survey given at the NSTA annual
conference to investigate motivated K-12 science teachers knowledge and reported use
of inquiry-based teaching. Teachers understanding of inquiry, as measured by their
knowledge of the scientific practices within inquiry, generally did not align with the most
recent reform documents most did not write about any of the scientific practices from
the Framework, and those who did only mentioned a few particular practices. Teachers
generally saw inquiry as student-centered, discovery-based science where students ask
their own questions and plan and carry out investigations.
These results are similar to those from previous studies on teachers conceptions
of inquiry. Demir and Abell (2010) investigated beginning teachers views of inquiry
and found that teachers most often described the role of questioning, often leaving out
other roles such as evidence, explanation, justification, and communication. Kang et al.
(2008) assessed K-8 teachers conceptions of inquiry by having them respond to an openended survey in which teachers had to classify teaching scenarios as representative of
inquiry-based teaching or not. They found that out of the 5 essential features of inquiry
outlined by the NRC (1996), teachers typically left out evaluating explanations and
connecting them to scientific evidence and communicating explanations. Although not
focused on K-12 teachers, Brown et al. (2006) found that college professors frequently
stressed the role of questioning and collecting data in inquiry, but did not often mention
other features such as explanation and justification.
63

This simplistic understanding of inquiry is problematic because although aspects

of inquiry can share some commonalities with discovery learning, we know that inquirybased teaching is much more than this it also involves analyzing data, drawing
inferences, and creating theories (NRC, 1996; AAAS, 1993). Crawford (2000) described
the role of teachers in inquiry as opposite than in discovery learning where the teacher is
not very involved. In inquiry, teachers must shift their instruction and take on a more
active and demanding role. Consequently, this type of instruction is much more time
intensive and difficult.
As the surveyed teachers represent a highly motivated population, based on their
attendance at the NSTA conference, we can assume that the average teacher likely has
even less knowledge of the scientific practices within inquiry. Few of these motivated
teachers have read important reform documents about inquiry, such as the NSES,
suggesting that most teachers are not learning about inquiry through these documents.
Additionally, since the majority of teachers learned about inquiry in multiple ways, even
teachers with frequent exposure to inquiry may have little knowledge of these scientific
practices.
We would expect a relationship between teachers understanding of inquiry and
their reported use of the scientific practices it would seem likely that teachers with a
higher knowledge of the scientific practices would be more likely to do them in the
classroom. However, we found no significant relationship between these variables in this
group of teachers. This result possibly suggests that teachers either over-reported their
use of the practices or they did not completely understand what they mean. Alternatively,
as seen by Lederman and Zeidler (1987) and Lederman (1999) in previous studies,
64

teachers conceptions of science do not necessarily influence classroom practice. There

are many other potential factors, such as the social and political environment of the
school, which may prevent even teachers with knowledge of inquiry from implementing
it in their classrooms.
Although we found no significant relationship between teachers knowledge of
the practices and their reported use of the practices, we did find that more teachers tended
to have knowledge of practices 1 and 3 and they reported doing practices 1, 3, and 8 most
often in their classrooms. Furthermore, interview data suggested that teachers may have
more knowledge of practice 8 than was measured by the survey. Therefore, it is possible
that there could be a relationship between teachers knowledge and use of particular
scientific factors. To better understand any potential factors which influence teachers
use of inquiry, more robust studies that include classroom observations and teacher
interviews are needed.
4.2. Perceived Challenges of Inquiry-Based Instruction
Findings from this survey concur with various studies conducted after the last
standards were published, in that the largest perceived challenges to enacting inquiry
were not enough classroom time (Newman et al., 2004), availability of materials (Songer
et al., 2002; Abell & McDonald, 2004), and lack of student motivation (Luft, 2001).
With the upcoming release of the NGSS, these challenges need to be addressed if we want
teachers to implement inquiry-based teaching in their classrooms when appropriate.
Interestingly, even though the surveyed teachers found the above factors to be challenges
to implementing inquiry-based instruction, they did not find their own content or
pedagogical knowledge or students age as challenges. Thus, these teachers seem to have
65

misplaced confidence although they had a simplistic understanding of what inquiry is,
they were confident in their own abilities as teachers. Consequently, they may not feel
that they need to learn more about inquiry-based teaching, which may impact how they
read and enact the recommendations of the NGSS they may think they are enacting
inquiry as the document prescribes, but in fact they may not be.
4.3. Reported Use of Scientific Practices
In analyzing teachers reported use of scientific practices, the items related to a
given practice generally grouped together in the principal components analysis. However,
instead of seven separate factors, there were only five. These results suggest that for the
most part teachers in this study were able to distinguish between the different practices.
However, the grouping together of factors 3 & 4 and 6 & 7 suggest that there may be
confusion between these constructs, the constructs may be ambiguous as defined in the
Framework, or the ideas are simply too closely related to differentiate. As practices 6
and 7 are currently written, there is much overlap between them.
Osborne and Patterson (2011) suggest that there is confusion in the literature
between the terms argument and explanation, making it hard for teachers and
subsequently students to effectively learn and use the practices. In their article, they
explain that an explanation accounts for a known phenomenon based on scientific facts
while an argument does not attempt to explain a feature, but rather justify a claim.
Confusion often arises because arguments are essential to the process of justifying the
validity of any explanation as there are often multiple explanations for any given
phenomenon (p. 629). For example, a claim (a feature of an argument) is often confused
as being an explanation. Berland and Raiser (2009) suggest that it often makes sense to
66

combine argument and explanation into a single practice, which they referred to as
constructing and defending scientific explanations, because of their similar pedagogical
goals. They note other educational researchers who have treated explanation and
argumentation as a single practice such as Hogan et al. (1999) who examined student
reasoning without differentiating between argumentative and explanatory discourse and
Bielaczyc and Blake (2006) who refer to the processes of using argumentation to build
explanations simply as knowledge building.
As an example of the overlap between practices 6 and 7 in the Framework, in
practice 7 engaging in argument from evidence students must construct scientific
arguments showing how data support a claim, to then explain how or why phenomena
occur (practice 6 constructing explanations and designing solutions). In practice 6,
students must rely on this evidence and should be able to construct their own
explanations of phenomena using their knowledge of accepted scientific theory and
linking it to models and evidence and use evidence to support or refute an explanatory
account of a phenomenon. Furthermore, explanations are evaluated and revised through
argumentation (Berland and Reiser, 2009) one of the bullet points under practice 6 is
for students to identify gaps or weaknesses in explanatory accounts, which requires the
process of argumentation. Thus, practices 6 and 7 are quite linked constructing and
evaluating explanations require using evidence. This division may not be very clear for
teachers, and could present problems as they attempt to implement the scientific practices
in their classrooms. If a sample of highly-motivated teachers had trouble distinguishing
between them, than children will clearly struggle.

67

4.4. Relationship with Teachers Background Factors

Finally, many factors predicted teachers reported use of inquiry, including
teacher experience, school characteristics, and self-confidence. One interesting finding
was that teachers with less experience who likely have more recently completed teacher
preparation programs were more likely to describe inquiry as it is defined in reform
documents (i.e. aligned with the scientific practices) than were experienced teachers.
This suggests that teacher preparation programs may now be emphasizing inquiry as
framed in reform documents as part of the curriculum. The result that school
characteristics offer additional predictive power beyond knowledge of teachers
backgrounds suggests that for even the best teachers, being in a school with a strong
focus on high-stakes testing or having a curriculum that does not support inquiry may
negatively impact their ability to enact inquiry in the classroom. Moreover, because there
was no relationship between teachers reported enactment of inquiry and the category of
curriculum they use, it follows that the positive effect of curricula that support inquiry on
teachers enactment of inquiry could conceivably hold true for no matter what type of
curriculum a teacher uses, whether commercial or teacher developed.
While we realize teacher beliefs are important, this study focused more
specifically on teachers understanding and reported enactment of inquiry. Nonetheless,
the survey did include some statements that probed teacher beliefs such as the question:
How often do you think your students should be engaged in inquiry-based instruction
throughout the year? and the statement, I can effectively assess my students progress
during inquiry. Additionally, we included some of the common myths that align with

68

teacher beliefs such as believing students are too young. None of these beliefs had much
of an influence on this group of teachers understanding or reported enactment of inquiry.
Previous studies have found that teacher beliefs about teaching, learning,
curriculum, and assessment can influence their enactment of inquiry and future research
should attempt to elucidate any potential relationship with teacher beliefs. For example,
Roehrig et al. (2007) studied 27 high school chemistry teachers as they enacted a reformbased chemistry curriculum and found that classroom practices were influenced by their
beliefs about whether classrooms should be more student- or teacher- centered.
Similarly, Cronin-Jones (1991) studied two middle school science teachers beliefs as
they enacted a new curriculum and found a similar connection between teacher beliefs
and classroom practices. Specifically, the teachers beliefs fell into four major
categories: beliefs about how students learn, a teachers role in the classroom, the ability
level of students in a particular age group, and the relative importance of content topics.
In another similar study, Tobin and McRobbie (1996) identified four different teacher
beliefs that impacted the enactment of a science curriculum including transmission of
knowledge, efficiency, maintaining the rigor of the curriculum, and preparing students to
be successful on examinations.
4.5. Conclusions and Implications
In summary, we have reached the following conclusions:

Even highly-motivated teachers with frequent exposure to inquiry can

have knowledge of the scientific practices within inquiry that generally do
not align with reform documents.
69

The most important factor for teachers implementing inquiry in their

classrooms was if they had read the national standards documents in
science.

Teachers with less experience those who recently completed teacher

preparation programs were more likely to describe inquiry as it is
defined in reform documents (i.e., aligned with the scientific practices)
than were experienced teachers.

Teachers may be confused about the distinctions between scientific

practices 3 and 4 (planning and carrying out investigations and analyzing
and interpreting data) as well as 6 and 7 (constructing explanations and
designing solutions and engaging in argument from evidence).

Several important implications regarding teachers and the Framework arise from
these conclusions. Given that many highly-motivated teachers with frequent exposure to
inquiry appear to have knowledge of the scientific practices within inquiry that do not
align with the reform documents suggests the need for pre-service instruction and inservice professional development targeting reading the national standards that discuss
inquiry, such as the Framework. However, as simply reading the national standards did
not correlate with teachers knowledge of scientific practices within inquiry, we propose
that this professional development should include meaningfully interacting with the
documents instead of merely reading them.
Woo and Reeves (2007) define meaningful interactions as interaction that has a
direct influence on learners intellectual growth (p. 15). Simple interaction with others
alone is not a guarantee that the participants will be cognitively engaged and does not
70

directly facilitate meaningful learning or understanding (Garrison and Cleveland-Innes,

2005). In their research on social exchange and knowledge construction Kanuka and
Anderson (1998) found that there was a lot of interaction between participants in an
online forum, but most of it was at a low level of cognitive exchange. To draw out and
develop new concepts, they suggested the need for a subject matter expert in the
discussion. Burr and Tagg (1995) suggest several examples of what could be included in
a meaningful interaction process: participants share what they are thinking, relate their
ideas to past experiences, collaborate with peers, actively construct their own meaning,
and incorporate the diverse perspectives of others. Woo and Reeves (2007) suggest
several other tasks important to meaningful interaction and coming to a common
understanding such as including both peers and experts, sharing resources and
perspectives, and synthesizing individual thoughts with those of others.
Meaningfully interacting with the Framework could, for instance, include districtwide study groups composed of a community of teachers led by an experienced
instructor. Although reading the national documents could help teachers learn more
about inquiry, it is also possible that there is a not a direct link and there are other
confounding variables impacting teachers knowledge and enactment of inquiry. Thus,
while professional development targeting meaningfully interacting with the national
documents may be effective, these relationships need to be more thoroughly considered
in future studies.
Even though our results suggest that teacher preparation programs may now be
including inquiry as part of the curriculum, we suggest that more should be done as even
the more recently educated teachers did not appear to be highly knowledgeable about the
71

scientific practices within inquiry. Furthermore, given that the most important factor for
teachers implementing inquiry in their classrooms was if they have read the national
standards, pre-service instruction and in-service professional development targeting
meaningfully interacting with the national standards could help teachers enact inquiry in
their classroom as well as better understand it.
Finally, because we found that teachers may be confused about the distinctions
between scientific practices 3 and 4 as well as 6 and 7, we suggest that professional
development especially focus on helping teachers better recognize the similarities and
differences between these practices. Teachers may purposely combine the practices
when they teach (based on particular contextual factors, such as the age of their students),
but at least they will have a better idea of why they are doing so.
In addition to the areas noted above regarding teacher beliefs and other
relationships with teacher knowledge of inquiry, we suggest several other areas to focus
on for future research. First, we measured teachers knowledge of the scientific practices
within inquiry using a survey given to teachers at a conference in order to recruit teachers
from a large geographic distribution and with a wide variety of backgrounds. A future
study might use a similar survey and interview protocol in a different context where
teachers have more time to consider their responses. Second, it would be interesting to
learn more about how reading the national standards documents help teachers enact
inquiry in their classrooms. Additionally, future classroom studies could compare
teachers knowledge of inquiry to their quality of enactment. Finally, this study suggests
that there may be some confusion between practices in the Framework. This confusion

72

should be the topic of further inquiry so that we can better support teachers in enacting
the practices in the upcoming NGSS.

73

REFERENCES
Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N.G., Mamlok-Naaman, R.
Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H. (2004). Inquiry in science education:
International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397-419.
Abell, S.K., & McDonald, J.T. (2004). Envisioning a curriculum of inquiry in the
elementary school. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and
nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Abrams, E., Southerland, S.A., & Silva, P.C. (2008). Inquiry in the classroom: Realities
and opportunities. Information Age Publishing.
Alberts, B. (2000). Some thoughts of a scientist on inquiry. In J. Minstrell&E. van Zee
(Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 313).
Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
American Association for the Advancement of Sciences. (1989). Project 2061: Science
for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science
literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, R.D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 112.
Asay, L.D. & Orgill, M. (2010). Analysis of essential features of inquiry found in articles
published in The Science Teacher, 1998-2007. Journal of Science Teacher Education,
21(1), 57-79.
Barr, R.B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for
undergraduate education. Change, 27(6), 1225.
Barrow, L.H. (2006). A Brief History of Inquiry: From Dewey to Standards. Journal of
Science Teacher Education, 17(3), 265-278.
Berland, L.K., & Reiser, B.J. (2008). Making sense of argumentation and explanation.
Science Education, 93(1), 26-55.
Bielaczyc, K., & Blake, P. (2006). Shifting epistemologies: Examining student
understanding of new models of knowledge and learning. In S. A. Barab, K. E. Hay,
& D. T. Hickey (Eds.), 7th Annual International Conference of the Learning Sciences
(pp. 50 56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

74

Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R., (Eds). (1999). How People Learn: Brain,
Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Bredderman, T. (1983). Effects of activity-based elementary science on student
outcomes: A quantitative synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 499-518.
Brown, P.L., Abell, S.K., Demir, A., & Schmidt, F.J. (2006). College science teachers'
views of classroom inquiry. Science education, 90(5), 784-802.
Bybee, R.W. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E.H. van Zee (Eds.),
Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 20-46). Washington, DC:
American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Capps, D.K. & Crawford, B.A. (2012). Inquiry-based instruction and teaching about
nature of science: Are they happening? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 1-30.
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.
Chinn, C.A., & Malhotra, B.A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A
theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175218.
Chira , S. (1990). Wherein balloons teach the learning process. Perspectives in
Education and Deafness, 8(4), 5-7.
Crawford, B.A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science
teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916937.
Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
CroninJones, L.L. (1991). Science teacher beliefs and their influence on curriculum
implementation: Two case studies. Journal of research in science teaching, 28(3),
235-250.
Demir, A., & Abell, S.K. (2010). Views of inquiry: Mismatches between views of
science education faculty and students of an alternative certification program. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 47(6), 716-741.
Dewey, J. (1910). Science as subject-matter and as method. Science, 121-127.
Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think: A restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to
the Education Process. Boston: D.C. Heath and Company.

75

Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific
knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.
Edelson, D.C., Gordin, D.N., & Pea, R.D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquirybased learning through technology and curriculum design. The Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 8(3-4), 391450.
Fosnot, C.T. & Perry, R.S. (2005). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. In
C.T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and Practice (2nd ed.) (pp.
8-38). New York: Teachers College Press.
Garrison, D.R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online
learning: Interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education,
19(3), 133-148.
Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P.C., Marx, R.W. Krajcik, J.S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., &
Clay-Chambers, J. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in
inquiry-based science curricula in the context of urban reform. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 45(8), 922-939.
Granger, E.M., Bevis, T.H., Saka, Y., Southerland, S.A., Sampson, V., & Tate, R.L.
(2012). The Efficacy of Student-Centered Instruction in Supporting Science Learning.
Science, 338(6103), 105-108.
Harwood, W.S., Reiff, R., & Phillipson, T. (2002, January). Scientists conceptions of
scientific inquiry: Voices from the front. Paper presented at the Association for the
Education of Teachers in Science, Charlotte, NC.
Hassard, J. (2005). The Art of Teaching Science. New York: Oxford University Press.
Haury, D.L., & OH, E.C. (1993). Teaching science through inquiry. ERIC/CSMEE
Digest. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and
Environmental Education. Retrieved September, 25, 2008.
Heywood, J. and Heywood, S. (1992). The Training of Student-Teachers in Discovery
Methods of Instruction and Learning [and] Comparing Guided Discovery and
Expository Methods: Teaching the Water Cycle in Geography. Research in Teacher
Education Monograph Series No. 1/92.
Hogan, K., Nastasi, B.K., & Pressley,M. (1999). Discourse patterns and collaborative
scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and
Instruction, 17, 379 432.
Ireland, J.E., Watters, J.J., Brownlee, J., & Lupton, M. (2012). Elementary teachers
conceptions of inquiry teaching: messages for teacher development. Journal of
Science Teacher Education, 23(2), 159-175.
76

Kang, N.H., Orgill, M., & Crippen, K.J. (2008). Understanding teachers conceptions of
classroom inquiry with a teaching scenario survey instrument. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 19(4), 337-354.
Kanuka, H., and T. Anderson. 1998. Online social interchange, discord, and knowledge
construction. Journal of Distance Education 13 (1): 5774.
Kennedy, M. (1998). Form and substance in in-service teacher education. Arlington,
VA: National Science Foundation.
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(6),
631-645.
Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P . C., Marx, R . W., Bass, K. M., Fredericks, J ., & Soloway, E.
(1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school
students. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3-4), 313-350.
Lederman, N.G. (2004). In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and
nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lederman, N.G. (1999). Teachers' understanding of the nature of science and classroom
practice: Factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 36(8), 916-929.
Lederman, N.G., & Niess, M.L. (2000). Problem Solving and Solving Problems: Inquiry
about Inquiry. School Science and Mathematics, 100(3), 113-16.
Lederman, N.G., & Zeidler, D.L. (1987). Science teachers' conceptions of the nature of
science: Do they really influence teaching behavior?. Science Education, 71(5), 721734.
Lee, O., Buxton, C., Lewis, S., & LeRoy, K. (2006). Science inquiry and student
diversity: Enhanced abilities and continuing difficulties after an instructional
intervention. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(7), 607-636.
Lee, C.A., & Houseal, A. (2003). Self-efficacy, standards, and benchmarks as factors in
teaching elementary school science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 15(1),
37-56.
Lloyd, C.V., & Contreras, N.J. (1985). The role of experiences in learning science
vocabulary. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Reading
Conference, San Diego, CA.

77

Lotter, C., W.S. Harwood, & J.J. Bonner. 2007. The influence of core teaching
conceptions on teachers use of inquiry teaching practices. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 44, 1318-1347.
Luft, J.A. (1999). Assessing science teachers as they implement inquiry lessons: The
extended inquiry observation rubric. Science Educator, 8(1), 918.
Luft, J.A. (2001). Changing inquiry practices and beliefs: The impact of an inquiry-based
professional development programme on beginning and experienced secondary
science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 517534.
Lynch, S., Kuipers, J., Pyke, C., & Szesze, M. (2005). Examining the effects of a highly
rated science curriculum unit on diverse students: Results from a planning grant.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(8), 912946.
Marshall, J.C., Horton, R., Igo, B.L., & Switzer, D.M. (2009). K-12 science and
mathematics teachers beliefs about and use of inquiry in the classroom. International
Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(3), 575-596.
Mattheis, F.E., & Nakayama, G. (1988). Effects of a laboratory centered inquiry program
on laboratory skills, science process skills, and understanding of science knowledge
in middle grades students. ERIC document reproduction service no. ED 307 148.
Minner, D.D., Levy, A.J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquirybased science instructionwhat
is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474-496.
Narode, R., Heiman, M., Lochhead, J., & Slomianko, J. (1987). Teaching thinking skills:
Science. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education
Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 science education: Practices
crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Newman, W.J., Abell, S.K., Hubbard, P.D., McDonald, J., Otaala, J., & Martini, M.
(2004). Dilemmas of teaching inquiry in elementary science methods. Journal of
Science Teacher Education, 15(4), 257-279.
Osborne, J.F., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary
distinction? Science Education, 95(4), 627-638.

78

Patrick, H., Mantzicopoulos, P., & Samarapungavan, A. (2009). Motivation for learning
science in kindergarten: Is there a gender gap and does integrated inquiry and literacy
instruction make a difference. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(2), 166191.
Quigley, C., Marshall, J.C., Deaton, C.C.M., Cook, M.P., & Padilla, M. (2011).
Challenges to inquiry teaching and suggestions for how to meet them. Science
Educator, 20(1), 55-61.
Rakow, S.J. (1986). Teaching science as inquiry. Fastback 246. Bloomington, IN: Phi
Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
Roehrig, G.H., Kruse, R.A., & Kern, A. (2007). Teacher and school characteristics and
their influence on curriculum implementation. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 44(7), 883-907.
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), 324.
Rosebery, A.S., Warren, B., & Conant, F.R. (1990). Making sense of science in language
minority classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Bolt, Baranek, and Newman, Inc.
Schwab, J.J. (1960). Inquiry, the science teacher, and the educator. The School Review,
176-195.
Schwab, J.T. (1958). Inquiry and the reading process. The Journal of General Education,
11(2), 72-82.
Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (1993). Reading versus doing: The relative effects of
textbook based and inquiry-oriented approaches to science learning in special
education classrooms. The Journal of Special Education, 27(1), 1-15.
Settlage, J. (2003). Inquirys allure and illusion: Why it remains just beyond our reach.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in
Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.
Educational researcher, 4-14.
Shymansky, J.A., Kyle, W.C., & Alport, J.M. (1983). The effects of new science
curricula on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5),
387-404.

79

Shymansky, J.A., Hedges, L.V., &Woodworth, G. (1990). A reassessment of the effects

of inquiry-based science curricula of the 60s on student performance. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 27(2), 127 144.
Songer, N.B., Lee, H.S., & Kam, R. (2002). Technologyrich inquiry science in urban
classrooms: What are the barriers to inquiry pedagogy?*. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 39(2), 128-150.
Stake, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Case studies in science education. Urbana, IL: The
University of Illinois.
Stoddart, T., Abrams, R., Gasper, E., & Canaday, D. (2000). Concept maps as assessment
in science inquiry learning: A report of methodology. International Journal of
Science Education, 22(12), 12211246.
Suchman, R.J. (1966). Developing Inquiry. Chicago: Science Research Associates.
Tobin, K., & McRobbie, C.J. (1996). Cultural myths as constraints to the enacted science
curriculum. Science Education, 80(2), 223-241.
Weiss, I.R., Pasley, J.D., Smith, P.S., Banilower, E.R.,& Heck, D.J. (2003). Looking
inside the classroom: A study of K12 mathematics and science education in the
United States. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
Weinstein, T., Boulanger, F.D., & Walberg, H.J. (1982). Science curriculum effects in
high school: A quantitative synthesis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
19(6), 511-522.
Welch, W.W., Klopfer, L.E., Aikenhead, G.S., & Robinson, J.T. (1981). The role of
inquiry in science education: Analysis and recommendations. Science Education,
65(1), 3350.
Wise, K.C., & Okey, J.R. (1983). A metaanalysis of the effects of various science
teaching strategies on achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5),
419-435.
Wong, S.L., Hodson, D., Kwan, J., & Yung, B.H.W. (2008). Turning Crisis into
Opportunity: Enhancing studentteachers understanding of nature of science and
scientific inquiry through a case study of the scientific research in severe acute
respiratory syndrome. International Journal of Science Education, 30(11), 14171439.
Woo, Y., & Reeves, T.C. (2007). Meaningful interaction in web-based learning: A social
constructivist interpretation. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 15-25.

80

APPENDIX A
SURVEY INSTRUMENT

81

82

83

84

85

86

APPENDIX B
CODE BOOK FOR QUESTION #7
Scientific Practices:
1. Asking questions and defining problems
The teacher indicated that they have their students ask questions about the natural or
human built worlds, distinguish scientific from nonscientific questions, or ask
questions about features or patterns in observations they make. Examples include
(the entire written answer is copied; the part that relates to the current practice is
bolded):
That your child will be given the opportunity to explore science by using
their sense and then generate their own questions which they will be given
an opportunity to research, test and discuss.
The need for scientific literacy we need to not just give them answers,
but help them ask questions - when we give questions they need to answer, it
forces them to think - not just regurgitate.

2. Developing and using models

The teacher indicated that they have their students construct or use models as
representations of events or systems, or they have their students discuss the
limitations and precision of a model. An example is:
Hands on and teacher is the facilitator. Students learn to think through a
problem. A lot of modeling.

3. Planning and carrying out investigations

The teacher indicated that they have their students plan investigations, such as by
deciding what data are to be gathered, what tools are necessary to do the gathering, or
identifying necessary controls, and/or carry out investigations. Examples include:

87

Inquiry is where students ask questions and develop an experiment based

on the questions. They will be doing science, not just learning it. Your kids
will experience science in a new way.
Science as a way of knowing: reasoning, asking questions, testing
questions, analysis of data, conclusions based in evidence.

4. Analyzing and interpreting data

The teacher indicated that they have their students analyze/interpret data such as
looking for patterns, making tables, charts, or graphs, and/or recognizing when data
are in conflict with expectations. Examples include:
Inquiry-based science teaching is important because it allows students to
figure things out for themselves. By asking their own questions and then
figuring out the answers to those questions, students will learn and
remember material much better than if a teacher just lectures them or they
just read about it. They also need to know how to analyze the data that they
produce. Science is all about producing data and analyzing it to see what it
means.
1) Students ask questions. 2) Students design investigations to answer
questions. 3) Students look at data and see if their questions were answered.
How well? 4) Anymore questions?

5. Using math and technology

The teacher indicated that they have their students use mathematics and/or computer
technology in analyzing data.
There were no examples of this scientific practice in the teachers answers.

6. Constructing explanations
The teacher indicated that they have their students construct explanations of
phenomena using their knowledge of accepted scientific theory. To count, the answer
had to specifically state that students constructed an explanation of their observations
or a phenomena, not simply answered a question. Examples include:

88

Observe critically the situation at hand. As yourself what is

happening/what I am seeing. Think critically when building an explanation
for the phenomena/situation using the evidence at hand.
Students use their knowledge, skills, and each other to investigate a problem,
phenomenon, etc. They develop knowledge by questioning and finding,
constructing/developing answers. Students have ownership of their
knowledge/learning. Promotes engagement. Higher interest activities.

7. Engaging in argument from evidence

The teacher indicated that they have their students construct scientific arguments
showing how the data support the claim and/or identify and discuss weaknesses in
scientific arguments using reasoning and evidence. Examples include:
Science as a way of knowing: reasoning, asking questions, testing
questions, analysis of data, conclusions based in evidence.
Providing student with hands-on, mind-on, real-life examples of science.
Students will learn to think like a scientist by asking questions about the
world around them, making careful observations, designing experiments,
collecting and analyzing data, and making conclusions. Lastly, students
will become part of a scientific community through classroom discourse and
blogging.

8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information

The teacher indicated that they have their students communicate their ideas and
accomplishments about a system under study by producing oral presentations or
written words, graphs, tables, or diagrams, and/or reading scientific text and
explaining the ideas being communicated. To count, the answer had to include or
imply that the students are communicating information in written or spoken form, not
just simply speaking or conversing in general. Examples include:
Providing student with hands-on, mind-on, real-life examples of science.
Students will learn to think like a scientist by asking questions about the
world around them, making careful observations, designing experiments,
collecting and analyzing data, and making conclusions. Lastly, students will
become part of a scientific community through classroom discourse and
blogging.

89

Inquiry-base science teaching allows students to learn about science in a

safe and structured environment. As we progress through a unit, students
will be given the tools to investigate a topic and will be built upon in time.
The goal in the end is to have students think like scientists. They will be able
to question scientifically and develop experiments that they design. And
most importantly, they will be able to explain what they learned and why it
is important (to me, their classmates, and themselves).

Themes:
A. Exploring/ discovering
The teacher indicated that inquiry-based science teaching involves students exploring
or discovering science topics, concepts, or ideas. Alternatively, they indicated that
inquiry-based science teaching avoids excessively detailed, cookbook like
procedures, instead being more of an open-ended approach where students guide their
own learning. Examples include:
Student centered. Lab instructions will tend to be more general - less of a
laundry list. Multiple means of instruction. Outcome is not predictable.
Lots of questioning that generates more questions.
An open ended approach where students guide their own learning
through questions and then investigating questions that will allow them to
draw conclusions.
B. Constructing knowledge
The teacher indicated that inquiry-based science teaching allows students to construct
their own knowledge about science processes and/or content, for example by students
facing or confronting misconceptions. Answers in which constructing knowledge
was not explicit such as figuring out answers or drawing conclusions were not
counted. Examples include:
Allowing the students to ask questions, try things out, and be wrong. It
helps them to confront their misconceptions and to retain what I am trying
to teach.
Making science content/processes relevant to real world. Students
making their own meaning of science processes/content. Students more
closely model the work of real scientists and engineers in a way that they
receive feedback to improve their scientific understanding.
90

C. Hands-on
The teacher indicated that inquiry-based science teaching is a hands-on approach or
involves hands-on activities. Examples include:
Hands-on. Guided to independent inquiry trained. Student centered.
Student created questions.
It is a way to apply concepts being taught in a hands on approach instead
of just the traditional lecturing approach.
D. Student-centered
The teacher indicated that in inquiry-based science teaching, students are not told
what to do or think by the teacher, and instead ask their own questions and/or design
and carry out their own investigations. Examples include:
Inquiry allows students to explore scientific concepts on their own without
using "cookbook" procedures.
Students design the project and carry it out.

E. Preparation for future school/work/life

The teacher indicated that inquiry-based science teaching is helpful for teaching
students skills that will help prepare them to succeed in work, life, or school after
their K-12 education. Examples include:
Prepares students for future challenges as it allows real development of
21st century skills. It connects learning to the real world - providing a
context for work in the classroom. Inquiry uses the processes of science and
critical thinking in opposition to the simple acquisition of facts, the use of
information is need-based.
That it's hands-on and gives students a chance to practice thinking skills.
In this way they are able to get content but more importantly they learn
skills they will use throughout their lifetime.

91

F. Relevancy
The teacher indicated that inquiry-based science teaching makes learning science
content and processes relevant for students by connecting their learning to real world
problems. Examples include:
Prepares students for future challenges as it allows real development of
21st century skills. It connects learning to the real world - providing a
context for work in the classroom. Inquiry uses the processes of science
and critical thinking in opposition to the simple acquisition of facts, the use
of information is need-based.
Making science content/processes relevant to real world. Students
making their own meaning of science processes/content. Students more
closely model the work of real scientists and engineers in a way that they
receive feedback to improve their scientific understanding.
G. Teamwork
The teacher indicated that in inquiry-based science teaching, students often work in
groups, and/or it helps students develop the ability to problem solve as a group.
Examples include:
Time-time to develop. Time to tweak - answers not necessarily predetermined - involves teamwork, solving group function AND solving real
problems - approaches, work division, who controls the info.
The most important thing I can teach through inquiry is the ability to
problem solve as a group. This skill will follow the student through the rest
of their academic career and into their employment future.
H. Engagement in science
The teacher indicated that inquiry-based science teaching helps to promote the active
engagement of students in activities, labs, problem solving, etc, and/or increases
student interest and motivation to learn about science. Examples include:
It teaches how to think, and how to evaluate issues using data instead of
bias in decision making. It engages students because they are active instead
of passive, and have some freedom to design and control their study.
Providing student with hands-on, mind-on, real-life examples of science.
Students will learn to think like a scientist by asking questions about the
world around them, making careful observations, designing experiments,
92

collecting and analyzing data, and making conclusions. Lastly, students will
become part of a scientific community through classroom discourse and
blogging.
I. Deeper understanding of science content knowledge
The teacher indicated that inquiry-based science teaching reinforces science
standards, helps students better understand science content, and/or helps students
remember information and/or concepts longer than with other methods of teaching.
Examples include:
Retention of content. Problem ID. Problem solutions. Creativity.
It is a natural way to learn. It inc. student interest and motivation.
Students remember what they learn because they experienced the
learning. They answer questions that they have (not the questions the
teachers put on them); therefore they have an increased desire to learn. It is
the root of scientific learning.
J. Critical thinking/ problem solving skills
The teacher indicated that inquiry-based science teaching allows students to access
and practice higher-level thinking skills such as critical thinking and problem solving
and/or the fact that inquiry-based science teaching does not involve memorization of
facts. Examples include:
Students learn to problem solve and think. They also learn to use their
resources and work well with others. It is the way science is done.
I would explain that inquiry-based science is a science that allows their
children to explore and ask questions. This science will allow their children
to access higher level thinking and problem solve to create and answer
questions that will lead them to probable answers and further explanation.

93

K. Models what real scientists do

The teacher indicated that inquiry-based science teaching allows students to more
closely model the work of real scientists, allowing them to experience the sciences the
way that scientists to, and allowing them to learn to think like a scientist. Examples
include:
Children learn best with this method of teaching. Students are more
engaged when provided with inquiry type lessons. Inquiry is more like a
scientist's experience.
Inquiry based science teaching allows students to discover science
concepts with their own experimentation. Their creativity can be expressed
by letting students "play" with materials, and have the scientific concepts
explained by the teacher. Students are given the opportunity to generate
questions, test hypotheses, and redesign or modify future experiments, which
mimics the actual scientific method.

L. Okay to get the wrong answers

The teacher indicated that in inquiry-based science teaching, it is okay for students to
not know the answers and to be wrong or to learn by trial and error; it is okay if the
conclusion is different from the initial prediction because the main goal is more the
thinking process than getting the correct answer. Examples include:
Allowing the students to ask questions, try things out, and be wrong. It
helps them to confront their misconceptions and to retain what I am trying
to teach.
Expect students to make errors. Invite questions. It is okay if you do not
know all the answers. Allow students to explore.

94

APPENDIX C
SAMPLE INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTION

Below is a sample interview transcript followed by its analysis (Table C.1). This
teacher discussed scientific practice 1 in question #7, but only discussed practice 8 during
the interview It kind of culminates in they do um a presentation for a lake committee.
In the interview, the teacher was asked to describe what two statements look like in his
classroom, one each from practices 1 and 8. He interpreted the statement from practice 8
in accordance with the Framework, but not the statement from practice 1 (Table C.1). In
this case, instead of describing how he has his students formulate questions that can be
asked empirically in a science classroom, he discussed how he uses daily questions to see
gaps in students knowledge.

Interview #10 (Grades 6-8, April 1, 2012)

[00:00:05.26] Ashley: My first question for you is to learn a little bit more about just
what you think of inquiry. Can you think of a lesson you taught recently in which you
used inquiry-based methods that you thought went really well in your classroom? Could
you just describe the lesson to me and what you were having the students doing?
[00:00:20.12] Teacher: Sure. One of the lessons... what I do every week actually, is I'll
have contracts, but the kids have this problem and there's things that they must show that
goes all along with it, but every week is to do some different inquiry task. And
sometimes it will be local, like um, where does our water come from, and that's my
question to them and when they kind of figure out those things, you know, finding out
where it comes from around the city leads to other questions that the kids have and then
they do questions on that.
[00:00:51.06] Ashley: Okay
95

[00:00:51.06] Teacher: One of the bigger things that we have going on right now is kind
of spring came about... I'm from Riverview Middle School and so there's a river right
there... and we do a lot of water testing and you know, going from the kids' first ideas on
you know, this river back when my school was a high school, the river used to be where
their parents had swim class, which the kids can't believe now because of sedimentation it's about a foot deep now. So um, you know, we start out with um, I'll use like a tic tac
toe or an I don't know, like a bingo strip of different water quality tests that they can do,
and they'll do those but then try to find out what are some point or non-point sources of
that and then ask them questions. It kind of culminates in they do um a presentation for a
lake committee that goes along with [00:01:54.02] Ashley: So they actually do it in front of the committee?
[00:01:54.02] Teacher: Yeah. Not really involved with the city, but like a committee of
people that meet at the city hall.
[00:02:02.09] Ashley: Okay, thank you. And now I'm just looking through some of your
answers when you kind of were guessing how often you had students do these things, and
I just kind of want to ask you about what one of two of them look like in your classroom.
I'm just going to kind of... um... let's see... how about this last one - produce written and
illustrated text or oral presentations that communicate their own ideas and
accomplishments. So you said you do this several times a week - so what might this look
like in your classroom a couple times a week?
[00:02:32.14] Teacher: Sure. A week goes Monday and Tuesday will be kind of the days
we introduce the new concept and what I'll for that is uh, a reading strategy that is called
jigsawed, but it comes from, we have a question of the day in the beginning and that goes
along with the targets, so and from that question of the day I get to see where the kids'
gaps are, the questions that they have. And so that kind of directs me to I have a bunch of
text sets for each unit or whatever we're going over and so you can pull out a text or
journal that goes along with that question and kind of levels of reading ability that you
can give on to the kids and from that it lets them answer their questions. And at the end
of class, they present what they found to their peers and then they kind of face questions
from the class and then like I talked about before with those contracts - that's an
individual one where they spend the whole week going more in-depth on the concept and
then at the end of the week it's presentation day on what they found dealing with the
question.
[00:03:36.03] Ashley: Okay, I'm going to ask one more and this is the last question. How
96

about um, this one when you said, or when I asked you - formulate and/or refine
questions that can be answered empirically in a science classroom. So what might this
look like in your classroom if you do it a couple times a week?
[00:03:47.08] Teacher: Okay, so again, with that question of the day that they have, um,
basically they come in with their knowledge and presenting that new topic, that's when I
get to see where the gaps are with questions that they have and um, like I said at the end
of class, they present those things, and they're open to questions from the class. And then
we'll take that as kind of it's called an exit slip, so before they leave, they need to kind of
answer that question but then cite where they got it from.

Table C.1. Results from interviewee #10.

Practices - Practices - Practice
Interview
S urvey promted 1

Properly Practice
interpret? prompted 2

S tatement

Produce written and

illustrated text or oral
presentations that
communicate their
own ideas and
accomplishments

97

Yes

S tatement

Properly
interpret?

No - Teacher uses
Formulate and/or
questions
refine questions
students have
that can be asked
about a daily
empirically in a
topic to see gaps
science classroom
in their knowledge

BIOGRAPHY OF THE AUTHOR

Ashley M. Young was born in Newton, Massachusetts on April 9, 1985. She was
raised in Westwood and Westford, Massachusetts and graduated from Westford
Academy in 2003. She attended Wheaton College in Norton, Massachusetts and
graduated in 2007 with a Bachelors degree in Biology. She spent a year conducting
research on invasive species at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada and then
entered the Oceanography graduate program at The University of Maine in the summer
of 2008. While completing this program, she discovered her enthusiasm for science
teaching, and after graduating in 2011 with a Masters degree in Oceanography, she
began the Master of Science Teaching program also at the University of Maine. After
receiving her degree, Ashley plans to teach high school biology and/or earth science.
Ashley is a candidate for the Master of Science in Teaching degree from The University
of Maine in May 2013.

98