JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 47, NO. 7, PP.

807–819 (2010)

An Investigation of Teacher Impact on Student Inquiry Science

Performance Using a Hierarchical Linear Model
Ou Lydia Liu,1 Hee-Sun Lee,2 Marcia C. Linn3
1
Educational Testing Service, 666 Rosedale Road, MS 16-R, Princeton, New Jersey 08541
2
Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts
3
University of California, Berkeley, California

Received 29 May 2009; Accepted 20 January 2010

Abstract: Teachers play a central role in inquiry science classrooms. In this study, we investigate how seven teacher
variables (i.e., gender, experience, perceived importance of inquiry and traditional teaching, workshop attendance,
partner teacher, use of technology) affect student knowledge integration understanding of science topics drawing on
previous research. Using a two-level hierarchical linear model, we analyze year-end knowledge integration performance
of 4,513 students taught by 40 teachers across five states. Results indicate that students of teachers who value inquiry
teaching strategies have significantly higher levels of knowledge integration understanding than those of teachers who
believe in traditional teaching methods. In addition, workshop attendance and having a partner teacher teaching the same
unit in the same school also have a positive impact on students’ knowledge integration levels. The results underscore
the importance of professional development and collegial support in enhancing student success in inquiry science.
ß 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 47: 807–819, 2010
Keywords: confirmatory factor analysis; hierarchical linear modeling; inquiry science; knowledge integration; teacher
professional development

Current reform efforts in science education promote inquiry-based teaching and learning for all
elementary and secondary school students (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2009;
National Research Council, 1996, 2007). Successful enactment of inquiry science teaching requires teachers
to understand the fundamental concepts in the discipline and to provide thoughtful guidance for students as
they grapple with challenging science ideas (Loucks-Horsley, 2003). It is important to identify the teacher
variables that can benefit student learning in inquiry science contexts.
In this paper, we first review literature on teacher variables that can impact student performance in an
inquiry science learning environment. For the context of this research, we describe how the knowledge
integration framework (Linn, 2006; Linn & Hsi, 2000) is applied to coordinate curriculum, assessment, and
professional development. To investigate the teacher impact on year-end performance of grade 6 to 12
students who studied technology-enhanced inquiry science curriculum units, we first examine how student
level variables such as gender, school level, language, and computer use are associated with the student
learning outcomes. We then examine how seven teacher-level variables (gender, teaching experience,
perceived importance of inquiry and traditional teaching, workshop experience, collegial support, and use of
technology) impact learning. The seven variables were chosen on the basis of previous research.
Teachers’ Role in Inquiry Science Learning
In inquiry learning students formulate driving questions, make predictions, conduct investigations, and
communicate science findings. These activities provide students with authentic opportunities to observe,
acquire, apply, and consolidate scientific ideas (Lee & Songer, 2003). Ideally, inquiry-based approaches can

Correspondence to: O.L. Liu; E-mail: lliu@ets.org

DOI 10.1002/tea.20372
Published online 2 April 2010 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).

ß 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

808 LIU, LEE, AND LINN

help students develop coherent and integrated understanding of science rather than primarily memorizing
isolated facts about science (Kali & Linn, 2008).
However, transforming traditional science teaching into inquiry-based practices requires strategic
planning from teachers (Krajcik et al., 1998; Songer, Lee, & Kam, 2002; Songer, Lee, & McDonald, 2003).
For the inquiry approaches to work effectively in science classrooms, teachers must embrace the importance
of inquiry teaching and integrate inquiry activities into their daily teaching practices (McDonald & Songer,
2008). They need to keep up with the evolving science subject content (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002), understand
student needs (Krajcik et al., 1998; Rivet & Krajcik, 2008) and integrate effective pedagogical strategies into
instruction (Marx, Fressman, Krajcik, & Blumenfeld, 1998). An increase in qualified science teachers is
critical in enhancing student science achievement (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of
Engineering, & Institute of Medicine, 2007). A growing body of research has shown that teachers play a
central role in changing classroom dynamics and promoting student understanding (Darling-Hammond,
2000; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005), especially in inquiry courses (Schneider & Krajcik, 2002; Varma,
Husic, & Linn, 2008).
The importance of strengthening the current science teaching workforce is highlighted in various high-
level documents (National Academy of Sciences, 2007; NRC, 1996, 2007). Many teacher variables have been
identified as having a potential impact on student learning in inquiry science class (McDonald & Songer,
2008). Some of these variables represent demographic information such as gender, language, and cultural and
ethnic background of teachers. Some are more specific to science teaching, such as content knowledge,
beliefs about teaching, and prior experiences in relevant fields. Others represent particular situational
opportunities teachers have received, such as professional development and on-site mentors, and the
membership to the community of practice. We discuss a few of these variables that are relevant to this study.
Both teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical strategies can contribute to successful student
performance (Arzi & White, 2008). For inquiry science, teachers’ understanding of fundamental science
concepts could help them creatively enact the lessons (Ball & Cohen, 1996; Schneider & Krajcik, 2002).
Involving teachers in curriculum design could therefore be an effective method of professional development
as student learning depends on teachers’ knowledge of the curriculum (Loucks-Horsley, 2003).
Pedagogically, inquiry science teaching requires less teacher-centered lecturing. Instead, teachers should
provide abundant opportunities for students to generate hypotheses, observe science phenomena, conduct
analyses, and communicate findings (Marx et al., 1998). What teachers know and can do affect all the core
aspects of teaching (Fullan, 2001).
The effect of teaching experience on student learning is mixed. Teaching experience may increase
teachers’ confidence and job satisfaction (Oh, Ankers, Llamas, & Tomyoy, 2005), and the positive affective
factors may translate into better teaching practices. Teachers may draw on their experiences to identify
common student beliefs about a topic. This knowledge could help teachers refine lessons to address the ideas
students bring into science class. Liu, Lee, and Linn (in preparation) found that teachers with five or more
years of experience had a significantly larger student success across six science domains than teachers with
less than 5 years experience. Experienced teachers may also have pedagogical advantages in promoting
student understanding through effective demonstrations and explanations.
However, experience could inhibit receptivity to educational reform. New curriculum and instruction
may conflict with the longstanding beliefs and practices of experienced teachers (Prawat, 1992). To succeed,
educational reform programs need to help teachers distinguish their existing beliefs from the new practices
and provide evidence to support the value of the new directions.
Teacher collaboration and partnership are also central in enhancing teaching capacity (Hoban, 2002;
Loucks-Horsley, 2003). Teachers’ collaborative activities could take place both in workshops and during the
actual enactment of curriculum units. Teachers can share experiences and reflections of teaching with each
other and plan lessons together. Teachers can also help each other deal with obstacles in teaching that arise at
their school site (National commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century, 2000).
Teachers’ use of technology is another important dimension in an inquiry science teaching context
which often involves simulations and model construction. Teachers’ familiarity with educational
technologies contributes to their engagement in technology-enhanced instruction activities (Fishman, Best,
Marx, & Tal, 2001). Frequent use of technology could improve the effectiveness of inquiry teaching and
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
 TEACHER EFFECT ON INQUIRY SCIENCE LEARNING 809

facilitate immediate feedback to students. Teachers help promote student understanding of science topics
through transformative modeling, virtual experiments and web-based visualizations (Linn, 2006; McElhaney
& Linn, 2008; Shen & Confrey, in press).
Given the essential roles teachers play in inquiry science classes and also the malleable nature of the
teacher-level variables that impact student learning, professional development programs that can effectively
enhance teacher experiences become high priorities in education (Fullan, 2001). Professional development
can address science content knowledge, provide opportunities for teachers to become familiar with
technologies and support collaboration with fellow teachers. Among the existing studies that evaluate the
effect of professional development across grades, teachers, and schools, Johnson, Kahle, and Pargo (2007)
implemented a 3-year longitudinal professional development program to all of the science teachers in two
middle schools. The teachers attended a summer institute and learned about inquiry teaching and the National
Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996). During the 3-year period, teachers implemented inquiry
instruction and reflected on their curriculum and teaching strategies. Student performance on a state science
assessment indicated that students with teachers in the professional development program significantly
outperformed students in comparison classes at the end of the project. Similarly, Lee, Deaktor, Enders, and
Lambert (2008) implemented a 3-year professional development intervention on science education for
students at six elementary schools who are also English language learners. In the program, teachers had the
opportunities to strengthen inquiry practices and develop positive beliefs about teaching science to students
with diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Students were tested with both project-developed
assessment and a test assembled from published NAEP/TIMSS items. Students in all three grades (3–5)
made significant progress between pre and posttest on both measures.
These research findings point to the importance of offering sustained and continuous professional
development training for teachers to ensure the fidelity of implementation of educational innovations. Also,
for any intervention to have a significant impact on science education, the program should involve a broad
range of students and teachers (Lee et al., 2008). To sustain education reform in schools, a converging
consensus is to form a community of practices among teachers (Akerson, Cullen, & Hanson, 2009; Loucks-
Horsley, 2003).

Theoretical Framework, Curriculum, and Professional Development

Knowledge Integration Framework
The knowledge integration theory (Linn, 2006) is used to guide the development of curriculum units,
inquiry-based student assessment, and professional development in this study. Knowledge integration theory
describes how learners acquire, refine, and connect knowledge in order to develop deeper understanding of
the domain. The knowledge integration processes include eliciting existing ideas, adding new ideas that are
more normative and potentially more powerful than existing ideas, comparing and contrasting between the
new and the existing ideas, and developing criteria for appropriate applications of the new ideas (Linn, 2000;
Linn, Davis, & Bell, 2004).

Curriculum Unit Design

Knowledge integration theory includes four principles for the development of instructional material,
consisting of (1) making thinking visible through the use of multiple representations (Casperson & Linn,
2006; Lee, Linn, Varma, & Liu, 2010), (2) making science accessible through the use of everyday experiences
and applications (Linn & Hsi, 2000; Linn & Muilenburg, 1996), (3) learning from others through the use of
collaborations in and out of classrooms (Clark & Linn, 2003), and (4) promoting lifelong learning through the
use of scaffolded reflections (Bell & Davis, 2000; Davis, 2003; Davis & Linn, 2000). These empirically tested
knowledge integration principles were used to develop the ten technology-enhanced inquiry science units
used in this study. These units include kinematics, mitosis, simple inheritance, global warming, and rock
cycle for middle school science and mechanics, chemical reactions, electrostatics, meiosis, and evolution for
high school science. These inquiry science units use computer simulations to provide opportunities for
students to interact with science processes, guide students to engage in inquiry activities, and capture student
progress in embedded assessments.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
810 LIU, LEE, AND LINN

Professional Development
The research effort described in this study was part of a larger research center funded by the National
Science Foundation, the Technology-Enhanced Learning of Science (TELS). TELS first worked with
principals to identify participating schools and then recruited teachers from those schools. In this study,
teachers who enacted inquiry science units were provided with two types of professional development
opportunities. First, summer workshops were offered before the beginning of the academic year. In these
workshops, teachers were actively involved in the design of the inquiry science units with education
researchers, curriculum developers, and technology developers. Teachers in small groups actively discussed
their difficulties teaching complex science topics, shared their successful strategies that worked for their prior
classes, and commented on the content and the script of the inquiry units. During that process, teachers also
refined the ideas of inquiry teaching with researchers (Varma et al., 2008). Teachers gained deeper
understanding of the science discipline through their participation in the curriculum design. In addition, being
able to formulate and reflect on the curriculum activities helped teachers understand the science inquiry
process. Although encouraged to attend, teacher participation in the summer workshops was voluntary. Thus,
not all teachers of this study attended these summer workshops.
Second, all teacher participants were provided with just-in-time professional development opportunities
while they were enacting inquiry science units in their classrooms. In these cases, researchers worked as
mentors to help teachers start with technologies needed for inquiry science units and teach the units.
Additional mentoring was offered to teachers who requested additional support. In sum, the professional
development provided in this study featured three components (Akerson & Hanuscin, 2007): (a) personal
development in which teachers considered the importance of inquiry teaching; (b) social development in
which the teachers were encouraged to exchange ideas with partner teachers and provide feedback to each
other about inquiry teaching strategies; and (c) professional development in which teachers received
sustained support as needed during the actual implementation of inquiry science units.
Although the focus of the investigation is on teachers, four student-level variables (gender, school level,
computer use for home work, home language) are also considered due to the following reasons: (a) previous
research on knowledge integration items showed no significant gender difference in inquiry performance
(Liu, Lee, Hofstetter, & Linn, 2008) and we want to confirm the results in this study, (b) since both high school
and middle school students are included in the analysis, we expect high school students to perform better than
middle school students, (c) an important feature of technology-enhanced inquiry learning is the use of
computers (Fishman et al., 2001; Linn, 2006). Students who have access to computers for homework may
benefit more from technology-based inquiry learning given their higher levels of familiarity with computers.
Home computer use could also be an indication of family income. Although the inclusion of the home
computer variable could not address the question of how home computer use affects learning, it at least
provides information on whether there is such an effect; and (d) previous research showed that students are
disadvantaged by their English language learning status (Luykx et al., 2007). In technology-based inquiry
learning, this disadvantage may be mitigated given the rich visualizations and thus less dependence on
language.

Method
Assessment Development and Scoring
An annual assessment was administered to students at the end of the academic year. Since teachers chose
one or two inquiry science units to implement during an academic year according to their teaching schedule,
there was an average 4-month period between the completion of the inquiry science unit and the
administration of the year-end assessment.
For the annual assessment, tests were created for each of the six science courses: physics, chemistry, and
biology for high school students, physical science, life science and earth science for middle school students.
About 60% of the items were project-produced items measuring knowledge integration (Linn, 2006). The rest
included items released from TIMSS, NAEP, and stated-administered tests. A total of 115 items on the tests
for six science courses, consisting of 55 multiple choice items, 54 explanation items, and 6 short response
items. Explanation items were scored using the knowledge integration rubric (Liu et al., 2008). Students’
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
 TEACHER EFFECT ON INQUIRY SCIENCE LEARNING 811

written explanations were evaluated based on the number of normative ideas they provide and the number of
scientifically elaborated links among the normative ideas. The knowledge integration scoring rubric is shown
below:

(Score 0) Irrelevant/Blank: Students did not answer the item or wrote some text unrelated to the
science topic being asked.

(Score 1) Non-normative ideas: Students wrote non-normative or scientifically invalid ideas.

(Score 2) Normative ideas: Students included normative ideas but did not provide meaningful
connections between the ideas.

(Score 3) Full link: Students made a scientifically valid and elaborated link between two normative
and relevant ideas.

(Score 4) Complex link: Students made two or more scientifically valid and elaborated links
between three or more normative and relevant ideas.

The items were analyzed using a Rasch partial credit model (PCM; Masters, 1982) and demonstrated
satisfactory item fit, item-test correlation, person fit, and internal consistency. The psychometric properties of
the items are summarized in Liu et al. (2008). See Table 1 for the descriptive statistics and reliability of the
tests used in this study.
Two forms were designed for each test to accommodate limited testing time. Common items were
embedded in each form to facilitate comparability. Common items balanced in item format and content.
Using the mean/sigma linear equating method (Kolen & Brennan, 2004), the item parameter estimates of the
common items in the two test forms were transformed to have the same mean and standard deviation for each
content area. Then student ability estimates were transformed to the same scale based on the linear function
obtained from the transformation of the item parameters. The form with higher reliability was used as the
baseline. Technical details of the equating procedure are described in Lee et al. (in press). Table 1 shows that
all of the tests had an average Cronbach’s alpha larger than 0.70 between the two test forms, suggesting
reasonable internal consistency. The common items used for equating also showed reasonable reliabilities
(all above 0.60), given the relatively small number of items.
Participants
Students. Data used in this study come from a single year when 40 teachers from five states
implemented the inquiry science units and administered the annual assessment. The annual assessment was
administered to 4,513 middle school and high school students. Among these students, 48.5% were female
students, 22.1% were second language learners, and 59.0% were middle school students. Sixty-three percent
of the students reported using computers for homework at home. The number of students who took the annual
assessment is provided in Table 1.

Table 1
Descriptive statistics and Cronbach’s alpha for the six science units
Item Format
No. of Multiple Short No. Total No. Common
Students Choice Response Explanation Items (a*) Items (a**)

MSPS 654 11 5 8 24 (0.70) 10 (0.67)

MSLS 978 7 1 9 17 (0.79) 8 (0.61)
MSES 1,236 5 — 9 14 (0.72) 8 (0.63)
PHY 372 14 — 12 26 (0.80) 10 (0.66)
CHEM 529 8 — 7 15 (0.79) 10 (0.70)
BIO 744 10 — 9 19 (0.75) 7 (0.62)
Total 4,513 55 6 54

MSPS, middle school physical science; MSLS, middle school life science; MSES, middle school earth science; PHY, high school physics;
CHEM, high school chemistry; BIO, high school biology.
*Mean Cronbach’s alpha between the two test forms.
**Mean Cronbach’s alpha for the common items used for equating between the two test forms.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

812 LIU, LEE, AND LINN

Teachers. Of the 40 teachers, 60% were female. They had a mean number of 13.83 years (SD ¼ 10.8) in
teaching, with the maximum value 36 and minimum 1. The teachers were from 13 schools in Arizona,
California, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Virginia. A large portion of the teachers serve schools with
economically disadvantaged students: 62% of the teachers teach at schools offering discounted lunch to more
than 20% of their students, and 32% teachers teach at schools with more than 50% students qualifying for
discounted lunch.
Teachers completed a self-report survey by the end of the unit implementation. Among the teachers,
25% of them had no prior experience teaching the inquiry science units, 65% taught one unit and the rest of the
15% had taught two or more units during the year. Twelve (30%) teachers attended the professional
development workshop offered by researchers in this project. About half of the teachers reported having a
partner teacher at the school teaching the same science unit. We describe the teacher level variables included
for analysis in this study as follows.
Teaching Experience. Teaching experience indicated by the number of years in teaching was coded as a
binary variable. Less than 5 years was coded 0 and 5 or more years was coded 1.
Perceived Importance of Inquiry and Traditional Teaching. Teachers were asked about their perceived
importance of various inquiry and traditional teaching strategies. Items start with ‘‘How important is each of
the following strategies for you to use in your science class?’’, followed by eight statements representing
inquiry or traditional teaching strategies. All items used three-point Likert scale ranging from ‘‘Very
Important (scored 3)’’ to ‘‘Not Important’’ (scored 1). These strategies were designed to reflect two kinds of
teaching strategies: strategies tailored for inquiry teaching and featuring student-centered teaching (four
items), and traditional strategies emphasizing lecturing (four items). A confirmatory factor analysis was
conducted to verify the factor structure of the teachers’ perceived importance scale using LISREL 8.8
(Joreskog & Saborm, 1993). Maximum likelihood estimation and Pearson correlation matrix were used. The
factor correlation was 0.36 between the two factors. Factor loadings are provided in Table 2. Fit indices CFI,
NNFI and RMSEA were used to evaluate the model fit. This two-factor structure showed a good model fit
(CFI ¼ 0.96, NNFI ¼ 0.93, RMSEA ¼ 0.03) according to the rules specified by Muthén and Muthén (2004).
The reliability coefficient was 0.68 for the inquiry strategies factor and 0.65 for the traditional strategies
factor. Sum scores on each factor were used as predictors in the teacher level model.
Workshop Attendance. Summer workshops were offered to support teachers before the enactment of
the inquiry instruction (Varma et al., 2008). The workshops introduced science units and let teachers
articulate their perception and ideas about inquiry science teaching. The workshops also helped teachers to
determine the kind of support they needed to implement the inquiry units. This variable was coded
dichotomously with 0 being absence and 1 being presence for the workshops.
Partner Teachers. Having opportunities to exchange ideas and discuss issues is an important aspect of
effective professional development. It was hypothesized that teachers with partner teachers in the same
Table 2
Factor loadings and reliability of teaching strategies factors
CFA Loading
Item Content F1 F2 a

Factor 1 0.68
Elicit students’ ideas prior to instruction 0.74
Emphasize connections among ideas 0.68
Consider various learner types 0.38
Support students to build their own arguments 0.32
Factor 2 0.65
Read textbooks 0.87
Memorize scientific facts 0.65
Give a lecture 0.61
Use mathematical formulas 0.41

Note: F1, inquiry teaching strategies; F2, traditional teaching strategies. a, Cronbach’s alpha.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

 TEACHER EFFECT ON INQUIRY SCIENCE LEARNING 813

school may be more successful in implementing the inquiry curriculum than teachers without such
opportunities. This variable was coded as a binary variable with having partner teachers as 1 and otherwise 0.
Use of Technology. Teachers were asked about how often they used computers in teaching science. Note
that this question applies to teachers’ use of computer in teaching science in general, not limiting to the
implementation of the units in this study. The four Likert choices are ‘‘almost every day,’’ ‘‘1-2 times a week,’’
‘‘1-2 times a month,’’ and ‘‘seldom,’’ and were scored as 3–0 respectively.

Hierarchical Analyses
A two-level hierarchical linear model (HLM) was used to investigate the impact of teacher
characteristics on student science achievement measured in knowledge integration abilities, with students at
the first level and teachers at the second level. Compared to traditional type of analyses of group differences
(e.g., analysis of variance) that neglects within group dependency, multi-level models are appropriate to
differentiate both within- and between-group variances, resulting in more accurate estimate of relations
between variables at student and teacher levels (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). HLM is a suitable analytical tool
for the present study because of the nested nature of the data and because we hypothesize that teacher impact
on student science performance varies depending on teachers’ experience, training, and perceived
importance of inquiry and traditional teaching strategies.

First Level Model: Outcome Variable and Predictors

The first-level outcome variable was student knowledge integration estimates on the end-of-year test in
six science courses. The equated student ability estimate from the Rasch PCM was used. Although the test
items focus on different content areas, all items measure student ability in integrating scientific evidence
which transcends specific content unit. Therefore, student science performance was used as a unifying
outcome variable across content areas. Student level predictors included gender, language, school level, and
computer use. All the above variables were coded as 0 and 1.

Second Level Model: Random Intercept and Teacher Variables

The second level was a random intercept model with teacher variables as predictors. Based on the survey
described above, this study included gender, teaching experience, perceived importance of inquiry and
traditional teaching strategies, workshop attendance, partner teacher, and technology use for analysis.
The Two-Level Hierarchical Linear Model
Mathematically, the model is formulated as:
Yij ¼ p0j þ p1j ðgenderÞ þ p2j ðschoollevelÞ þ p3j ðlanguageÞ þ p4j ðcomputerÞ þ eij

p0j ¼ b00 þ b01 ðgenderÞ þ b02 ðexperienceÞ þ b03 ðinquiryÞ þ b04 ðtraditionalÞ
þ b05 ðworkshopÞ þ b06 ðpartnerÞ þ b07 ðtechnologyÞ þ r0

where Yij stands for student inquiry science proficiency, schoollevel is a binary variable with 0 for middle
school and 1 for high school, traditional and inquiry are sum scores representing teachers’ perceived
importance of traditional and inquiry teaching strategies respectively, experience is a binary variable with less
than 5 years experience being 0 and otherwise being 1, workshop and partner are also binary variables,
standing for workshop attendance and having a partner teacher at the school respectively. Technology stands
for teachers’ reported frequency of the use of computers for TELS units. It was designed to be a variable with
four possible values: almost every day, 1–2 times a week, 1–2 times a month, and seldom. However, since all
teachers reported using computers for TELS units almost every day or 1–2 times a week, this variable
essentially became a binary variable in the analysis. The HLM analysis was conducted using the software
HLM 6 (Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, & Congdon, 2004). Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics of
the outcome variable indicated by the equated student ability estimate by student- and teacher-level variables
included in the two-level model.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
814 LIU, LEE, AND LINN

Results
By drawing on previous research we were able to identify promising teacher factors for study. We
found that three of the four student level factors and three of the six teacher level factors were significant
(see Table 4). At the student level, gender did not significantly predict science performance (p ¼ 0.09). This
finding is consistent with previous studies (Lee et al., in press; Liu et al., 2008). High school students
performed better than middle school students on inquiry science (schoollevel p ¼ 0.01) as expected.
Language and computer use were also significant predictors of science achievement (p < 0.001),
respectively, with students speaking English as a first language or using computers at home for homework
having an advantage. At the teacher level, gender did not influence student performance (p ¼ 0.21). Teaching
experience did not affect student learning in the present study (p ¼ 0.15). Teacher use of technology did not
significantly impact student learning (p ¼ 0.21). Although perceived importance of traditional teaching
strategies were not a significant predictor for student success, perceived importance of inquiry strategies
was significantly associated with positive student performance (p ¼ 0.05). Teachers who believe in the
importance of inquiry teaching advocated four strategies (see Table 2) associated with successful science
learning.
Professional development proved valuable for inquiry science. Both workshop attendance and having a
partner teacher had a positive impact on student science achievement (p ¼ 0.05 and p ¼ 0.03 respectively).
Analysis of the random effects (Table 4) estimates the variance accounted by within- and between-
teachers factors. R is the variance of first level residual (eij) and U0 is the variance of the second level residual
(r0). A significant U0 suggests that even after controlling for various teacher variables, there was still a

Table 3
Descriptive statistics of the outcome variable by student and by teacher
n M SD
Student level
Gender
Male 2,323 0.18 0.96
Female 2,190 0.19 0.93
School level
Middle school 2,701 0.34 0.93
High school 1,812 0.06 0.91
Home language
English 3,517 0.14 0.94
Non-English 996 0.32 0.96
Computer use
Yes 2,857 0.03 0.91
No 1,656 0.44 0.94
Teacher level
Gender
Male 16 0.07 0.82
Female 24 0.31 0.98
Teaching experience
0–5 years 11 0.25 1.03
6 or more years 29 0.09 0.90
Workshop attendance
Attended 12 0.03 0.77
Not attended 28 0.30 0.98
Partner teacher
Yes 20 0.06 0.78
No 20 0.31 1.12
Use of technology
Almost everyday 22 0.18 0.88
1–2 times a week 18 0.23 1.01
Twice a month 0* — —
Seldom 0 — —

*No teachers reported using technology twice a month or seldom.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

 TEACHER EFFECT ON INQUIRY SCIENCE LEARNING 815

Table 4
Fixed and random effects for the HLM
Fixed Effects
Standard
Symbol Coefficient Error df p

Student level
Gender p1j 0.04 0.03 3,056 0.09
School level p2j 0.46 0.20 3,056 0.01
Language p3j 0.10 0.03 3,056 <0.001
Computer use p4j 0.09 0.03 3,056 <0.001
Teacher Level
Gender b01 0.32 0.25 28 0.21
Teaching experience b02 0.22 0.16 28 0.15
Perceived importance of inquiry teaching b03 0.46 0.23 28 0.05
Perceived importance of traditional teaching b04 0.27 0.18 28 0.14
Workshop attendance b05 0.30 0.15 28 0.05
Partner teacher b06 0.39 0.18 28 0.03
Use of technology b07 0.20 0.16 28 0.21

Random Effects

SD Variance df Chi-square p
Component

Intercept, U0 0.69 0.50 28 2,153.08 <0.001

Level 1, R 0.68 0.47

significant between-teacher difference in mean student performance. An intra-class correlation (0.52 ¼ 0.50/
(0.47 þ 0.50)) was computed based on the variance components at the student and teacher level. The 0.52
intra-class correlation means that teachers accounted for about 52% of the variance in student performance,
suggesting a significant teacher impact on student achievement.
Discussion
Consistent evidence from existing literature points to the instrumental role teachers play in students’
integrated understanding of inquiry science topics. In this study, we investigate the impact of several teacher-
level variables on student performance on end-year assessment measuring scientific knowledge integration.
Through a two-level hierarchical linear model we examine factors contributing to inquiry science learning
among middle school and high school students in five states. Several student and teacher characteristics have
been identified as having a significant impact on student science performance.
The Impact of Student Grade, Home Language, Computer Use, and Gender on Science Performance
Results from this study show that grade, home language and computer use all have a significant impact
on student science achievement, among which, grade level was the most powerful predictor. High school
students achieved more knowledge integration understanding than middle school students, consistent with
their greater experiences in science courses. In addition, advanced high school science courses like Chemistry
and Physics address topics like chemical reactions or electrostatics that require more complex connections
between atomic representations, symbolic representations, and observable phenomena.
Using a home computer for homework was a significantly positive predictor of science learning. This
makes sense because home computer users could be expected to have more familiarity with the technology
used for the TELS units. They are likely to make better use of the technologies than less experienced students.
Although data were not available on student socio-economic backgrounds, the positive effect of home
computer use may reflect other family advantages such as interest in science and engineering.
Speaking English at home was another significant predictor of inquiry science learning. This is
somewhat surprising since the units use graphics, visualizations, and social interactions as well as text to
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
816 LIU, LEE, AND LINN

communicate about science. However, if students have difficulty writing in English they would benefit less
from reflection questions and possibly receive less feedback from teachers. Home language may also reflect
student socio-economic backgrounds as many students who do not speak English at home come from low-
income immigrant families. To clarify the relationship between home language and computer use, we ran a
two by two cross tabulation and obtained the chi-square statistic. There was no significant relationship
between these two variables (63.4% home English-speaking students and 61.4% non-English speaking
students use home computer, p ¼ 0.26).
It is worth noting that gender was not a significant factor in performance, consistent with other research
on inquiry (Linn & Hsi, 2000). Since many of the visualizations depend on reasoning about spatially
presented information, the lack of a connection between gender and performance is reassuring. Recent work
on spatial reasoning shows that gender effects are uneven and small (Liu et al., in press; Wright, Thompson,
Ganis, Newcombe, & Kosslyn, 2008). In addition, effects are not common on unfamiliar tasks and tend to
disappear with practice (Liu et al., in press).
The Impact of Perceived Importance of Inquiry Strategies, Workshop Attendance, and Partner
Teacher on Student Learning
Of the seven teacher level variables investigated in this study, three had a significant impact on student
knowledge integration understanding: inquiry teaching strategies, workshop attendance, and having a partner
teacher. Teacher gender, teaching experience, use of traditional strategies and use of technology did not
significantly predict student performance. The information was gathered through teachers’ self-report.
While no observations of practice were available, teachers who reported valuing inquiry teaching
strategies are likely to practice these strategies in their enactment of the curriculum units. The inquiry
teaching strategies (see Factor 1 in Table 2) such as working with students’ own ideas and providing
scaffolding may be particularly effective for the TELS inquiry units since the units emphasize student ability
to conduct science inquiry and to reach more coherent knowledge integration understanding from existing
ideas. Successful inquiry teaching underscores the integration of student ideas about the science phenomena
(Linn, 2000; Linn & Hsi, 2000). As students take many different approaches to understanding the same
science topics, teachers who support inquiry strategies are likely to understand the value of supporting
students to build their own arguments during instruction. Teachers who introduce new science topics by
encouraging students to relate the new topic to previous learned topics can contribute to student integrated
understanding. Inquiry strategies may be particularly effective in helping students interpret the scientific
visualizations in the curriculum units. The visualizations illustrate science topics that are complex in nature
(e.g., airbag deployment), unobservable to naked eyes (e.g., global warming), or too dangerous to
demonstrate in classrooms (e.g., explosive chemical reactions). Using inquiry strategies teachers could
encourage students to explore, ask questions, generate hypothesis, and test ideas (Linn & Hsi, 2000; NRC,
2000). Finally, the strategy of expecting that each student will have a unique learning trajectory is very
compatible with an emphasis on knowledge integration. If teachers pay close attention to student ideas, they
can provide guidance to students in each lesson.
Teachers’ workshop attendance was also a significant predictor of student science learning. In the
workshops, teachers became part of the design team, using evidence from student baseline assessments to
develop and refine the curriculum. The finding that teachers who attended the content-based workshop had a
larger student success is consistent with research on evidence-based professional development (Kennedy,
1998; Wayne, Yoon, Zhu, Cronen, & Garet, 2008). Research found that programs that focus on teachers’
understanding of how students think about the topic of instruction have a larger effect on student achievement
than programs that focus on teaching strategies (Kennedy, 1998). Kennedy argued that understanding of and
familiarity with the content contributes to their abilities to make science inquiry accessible to students. Such
knowledge would enable teachers to improve use of inquiry strategies such as asking questions.
In addition to the focus on teacher participation in curriculum design, the workshops offered in this study
also reinforced the importance of inquiry strategies. Workshop attendance may have affected teachers’
perceived importance of inquiry teaching because there is a significant correlation between perceived
importance of inquiry strategies and workshop attendance (r ¼ 0.38, p ¼ 0.05). This finding attests to the
critical importance of adequate professional development in implementing innovative science programs.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
 TEACHER EFFECT ON INQUIRY SCIENCE LEARNING 817

Partner teacher was identified as another beneficial factor for improved student science knowledge
integration understanding. Collegial support has proven effective in many other studies (Meirink, Meijer, &
Verloop, 2007; Normal, Golian, & Hooker, 2005). Partner teachers have the opportunity to compare lesson
plans, visit each other’s classrooms, and discuss teaching strategies. Teachers could reflect with their partner
teacher and exchange feedback to each other. Having a partner teacher provides the opportunity for teachers
to adapt effective strategies for use in their classroom. Such opportunity could empower teachers to
experiment with new materials and new teaching practices (Putnam & Borko, 2000). As Loucks-Horsley
(2003) points out, effective professional development programs should emphasize collegiality, cooperation,
and communication among teachers.
Lack of Impact of Teaching Experience and Use of Technology
The number of years in teaching was not a significant predictor of student performance. The lack of
significance may be clarified by the distinction between perceived importance of inquiry and traditional
strategies. In this study, the effect of experience might be mediated by the focus of that experience. Some
teachers might develop expertise in inquiry while others might not gain this expertise although they are
experienced teachers. Although not significant, there was a negative correlation between perceived
importance of inquiry teaching and number of years in teaching (r ¼ 0.11).
Teachers’ self-reported use of technology was also found to be an insignificant predictor of student
learning. However, it does not necessarily suggest that technology use plays little role in inquiry teaching. On
the contrary, this variable’s lack of statistical significance is most likely due to the fact that all of the teachers
in this study use technology frequently, and thus the true relationship between technology use and student
performance is disguised by the truncated observations we had.
Next Steps
In this study, observations were not available on teachers’ actual practices in their enactment of the
inquiry units. For the purpose of further clarifying the relationship between the use of inquiry strategies and
enhanced student knowledge integration understanding, future research can examine teaching practices
through both qualitative and quantitative studies. Classroom observations, teacher interviews, and surveys
can be used to gain in-depth understanding of teachers’ pedagogical practices.
Findings from this study have practical implications for practitioners and policy makers in science
education. Researchers who design and provide professional development programs should emphasize
the importance of inquiry teaching and provide sufficient opportunities for teachers to fully understand
the practices entailed by inquiry teaching. Also, continuous support should be provided to teachers at
different phases of the curriculum implementation. Informed by results from this study, policy makers should
support whole-school professional development programs so that teachers could benefit from partner
teachers in teaching inquiry science.
In summary, analysis at the teacher level supports the idea that professional development opportunities,
endorsement of inquiry strategies, and collegial support jointly enhance student knowledge integration
understanding from inquiry science instruction. Findings from this study show that effective inquiry
instruction may condition on a broad range of variables and sustained professional development is likely to
contribute to the success of inquiry science learning.

References
Akerson, V.L., Cullen, T.A., & Hanson, D.L. (2009). Fostering a community of practice through a professional
development program to improve elementary teachers’ views of nature of science and teaching practice. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 46(10), 1090–1113.
Akerson, V.L., & Hanuscin, D.L. (2007). Teaching nature of science through inquiry: Results of a 3-year professional
development program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 653–680.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2009). Benchmarks for science literacy: Project 2061.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Arzi, H.J., & White, R.T. (2008). Change in teachers’ knowledge of subject matter: A 17-year longitudinal student.
Science Education, 92, 221–251.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

818 LIU, LEE, AND LINN

Ball, D.L., & Cohen, D.K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is-or might be-the role of curriculum materials in
teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6–8, 14.
Bell, P., & Davis, E.A., (2000) Designing mildred: Scaffolding students’ reflection and argumentation using a
cognitive software guide. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences 2000, Ann Arbor, MI.
Casperson, J.M., & Linn, M.C. (2006). Using visualization to teach electrostatics. American Journal of Physics,
74(4), 316–323.
Chinn, C.A., & Malhotra, B.A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for
evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175–218.
Clark, D., & Linn, M.C. (2003). Designing for knowledge integration: The impact of instructional time. The Journal
of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 451–493.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), http:/ /olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/. Accessed 12 January 2009.
Davis, E.A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed
prompts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 91–142.
Davis, E.A., & Linn, M.C. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE.
International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819–837.
Fishman, B., Best, S., Marx, R., & Tal, R. 2001. Fostering teacher learning in systemic reform: Linking professional
development to teacher and student learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of
Research on Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.
Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.) New York: Teachers’ College Press.
Hoban, G.F. (2002). Teacher learning for educational change: A systems thinking approach. Buckingham and
Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Johnson, C.C., Kahle, J.B., & Pargo, J.D. (2007). A study of the effect of sustained, whole-school professional
development on student achievement in science. Journal of Research in Science Education, 44(6), 775–786.
Joreskog, K.G., & Saborm, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command
language. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Kali, Y., & Linn, M.C. (2008). Technology-enhanced support strategies for inquiry learning. In J.M. Spector, M.D.
Merrill, J.J.G. Van Merrioer, & M.P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology
(3rd ed., pp. 145–161). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kennedy, M. (1998). Form and substance of inservice teacher education (Research Monograph No. 13). Madison:
University of Wisconsin-Madison, National Institute for Science Education.
Kolen, M.J., & Brennan, R.L. (2004). Test equating, scaling, and linking: Methods and practices (2nd ed.) New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Krajcik, J.S., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R.W., Bass, K.M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Middle school students’
initial attempts at inquiry in project-based science classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 313–350.
Lee, H.-S., Linn, M.C., Varma, K., & Liu, O.L. (2010). How does technology-enhanced inquiry science units impact
classroom learning? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(1), 71–90.
Lee, H.-S., & Songer, N.B. (2003). Making authentic science accessible to students. International Journal of Science
Education, 25(8), 923–948.
Lee, O., Deaktor, R., Enders, C., & Lambert, J. (2008). Science achievement among elementary students from diverse
languages and cultures. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(6), 726–747.
Linn, M.C. (2000). Designing the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education,
22(8), 781–796.
Linn, M.C. (2006). The knowledge integration perspective on learning and instruction. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The
Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 243–264). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Linn, M.C., Davis, E.A., & Bell, P. (2004). Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Linn, M.C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Linn, M.C., & Muilenburg, L. (1996). Creating lifelong science learners: What models form a firm foundation?
Educational Researcher, 25(5), 18–24.
Liu, L.L., Uttal, D.H., Marulis, L.M., Lewis, A.R., Warren, C.M., & Newcombe, N.S., (in press). Training spatial
skills: What works, for whom, and for how long?
Liu, O.L., Lee, H.S., Hoftstetter, C., & Linn, M.C. (2008). Assessing knowledge integration in science: Construct,
measures, and evidence. Educational Assessment, 13, 1–23.
Liu, O.L., Lee, H.S., & Linn, M.C. (conditionally accepted). Evaluating inquiry-based science units using a
hierarchical liner model. Educational Assessment.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

 TEACHER EFFECT ON INQUIRY SCIENCE LEARNING 819

Loucks-Horsley, S. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Luykx, A., Lee, O., Mahotiere, M., Lester, B., Hart, J., & Deaktor, R. (2007). Cultural and home language influences
on children’s responses to science assessments. Teachers College Record, 109(4), 897–926.
Marx, R.W., Fressman, J.G., Krajcik, J.S., & Blumenfeld, P.C. (1998). Professional development of science teachers.
In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education. The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Masters, G.N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149–174.
McDonald, S., & Songer, N.B. (2008). Enacting classroom inquiry: Theorizing teachers’ conceptions of science
teaching. Science Education, 92(6), 973–993.
McElhaney, K.W., & Linn, M.C., (2008) Impacts of students’ experimentation using a dynamic visualization on their
understanding of motion. International Perspectives in the Learning Sciences: Cre8ting a Learning World. Proceedings of
the 8th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, 2, 51–58.
Meirink, J.A., Meijer, P.C., & Verloop, N. (2007). A closer look at teachers’ individual learning in collaborative
settings. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 13(2), 145–164.
Muthén, L.K., & Muthén, B.O. (2004). Mplus: The comprehensive modeling program for applied researchers. User’s
guide (3rd ed.) Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering & Institute of Medicine. (2007). Rising above the
gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
National commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century. (2000). Before it’s too late: A report
to the nation from The National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century. Washington, DC:
US Department of Education.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
Norma, P.J., Golian, K., & Hooker, H. (2005). Educator professional development schools and critical friends groups:
Supporting student, novice and teacher learning. The New Educators, 1, 273–286.
Oh, D.M., Ankers, A.M., Llamas, J.M., & Tomyoy, C. (2005). Impact of pre-service student teaching experience on
urban school teachers. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31(1), 82–98.
Prawat, R.S. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning: A constructivist perspective. American Journal of
Education, 100(3), 354–395.
Putnam, R.T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on
teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.
Raudenbush, S.W., & Bryk, A.S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., Cheong, Y.F., & Congdon, R. (2004). HLM 6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling.
Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
Rivet, A.E., & Krajcik, J.S. (2008). Contextualizing instruction: Leveraging students’ prior knowledge and
experiences to foster understanding of middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 79–100.
Rivkin, S.G., Hanushek, E.A., & Kain, J.F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica,
73(2), 417–458.
Schneider, R.M., & Krajcik, J. (2002). Supporting science teacher learning: The role of educative curriculum
materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(3), 221–245.
Shen, J., & Confrey, J. (in press). Justifying alternative models in learning the solar system: A case study on K-8
science teachers’ understanding of frames of reference. International Journal of Science Education.
Songer, N.B., Lee, H.-S., & Kam, R. (2002). Technology-rich inquiry science in urban classrooms: What are the
barriers to inquiry pedagogy? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(2), 128–150.
Songer, N.B., Lee, H.-S., & McDonald, S. (2003). Research towards expanded understanding of inquiry science
beyond one idealized standard. Science Education, 87, 490–516.
Varma, K., Husic, F., & Linn, M.C. (2008). Targeted support for using technology-enhanced science inquiry modules.
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(4), 341–356.
Wright, R., Thompson, W.L., Ganis, G., Newcombe, N.S., & Kosslyn, S.M. (2008). Training generalized spatial
skills. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(4), 763–771.
Wayne, A.J., Yoon, K.S., Zhu, P., Cronen, S., & Garet, M.S. (2008). Experimenting with teacher professional
development: Motives and methods. Educational Researcher, 37, 469–479.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching