Comparing Classroom Enactments of an Inquiry Curriculum: Lessons Learned From Two Teachers

Abstract Examining how teachers structure the activities in a unit and how they facilitate classroom discussion is important to understand how innovative technology-rich curricula work in the context of classroom instruction. This study compared 2 enactments of an inquiry curriculum, then examined students' learning outcomes in classes taught by 2 teachers. The quantitative data show that there were significant differences in the learning outcomes of students in classes of the 2 teachers. This study then examined classroom enactments by the 2 teachers to understand the differences in the learning outcomes. This research specifically focused on how teacher-led discussions (a) helped connect the activities within a curriculum unit and (b) enabled deeper conceptual understanding by helping students make connections between science concepts and principles. This study examined the role that teacher facilitation played in helping students focus on the relations between the various activities in the unit and the concepts that they were learning. The results point to important differences in the 2 enactments, helping to understand better what strategies might enable a deeper conceptual understanding of the science content.

[1]  J. Stenton,et al.  Learning how to teach. , 1973, Nursing mirror and midwives journal.

[2]  R. Glaser.  Advances in Instructional Psychology , 1978 .

[3]  M. Chi,et al.  Network representation of a child's dinosaur knowledge. , 1983 .

[4]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  Reciprocal Teaching of Comprehension-Fostering and Comprehension-Monitoring Activities , 1984 .

[5]  C. Atman,et al.  How people learn. , 1985, Hospital topics.

[6]  S. Carey.  Cognitive science and science education. , 1986 .

[7]  G. W. Furnas,et al.  Generalized fisheye views , 1986, CHI '86.

[8]  Michelene T. H. Chi,et al.  How Inferences about Novel Domain-Related Concepts Can Be Constrained by Structured Knowledge. , 1989 .

[9]  M. Patton.  Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 2nd ed. , 1990 .

[10]  Ok-choon Park,et al.  Hypermedia: functional features and research issues , 1991 .

[11]  Allan Collins,et al.  Toward a Design Science of Education , 1992 .

[12]  T. P. Carpenter,et al.  Learning and teaching with understanding. , 1992 .

[13]  M. Scardamalia,et al.  Text-Based and Knowledge Based Questioning by Children , 1992 .

[14]  Abbie Brown,et al.  Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in c , 1992 .

[15]  Douglas A. Grouws,et al.  Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning , 1992 .

[16]  M. Patton,et al.  Qualitative evaluation and research methods , 1992 .

[17]  Yasmin B. Kafai,et al.  Minds In Play: Computer Game Design as a Context for Children''s , 1994 .

[18]  R. Shavelson.  On Concept Maps as Potential "Authentic" Assessments in Science. Indirect Approaches to Knowledge Representation of High School Science. , 1993 .

[19]  Wolff‐Michael Roth,et al.  The development of science process skills in authentic contexts , 1993 .

[20]  James D. Hollan,et al.  Pad++: a zooming graphical interface for exploring alternate interface physics , 1994, UIST '94.

[21]  G. Baxter.  Cognitive Analysis of a Science Performance Assessment. Project 2.1 Designs for Assessing Individual and Group Problem Solving. Assessing the Validity of Existing Assessments of Problem-Solving Performance in Science: A Taxonomy of Cognitive Processes. , 1994 .

[22]  M. G. Jones,et al.  The concept map as a research and evaluation tool: Further evidence of validity , 1994 .

[23]  E. Soloway,et al.  A Collaborative Model for Helping Middle Grade Science Teachers Learn Project-Based Instruction , 1994, The Elementary School Journal.

[24]  J. Shea.  National Science Education Standards , 1995 .

[25]  Wolff-Michael Roth,et al.  Authentic school science : knowing and learning in open-inquiry science laboratories , 1995 .

[26]  Leona Schauble,et al.  Students' Understanding of the Objectives and Procedures of Experimentation in the Science Classroom , 1995 .

[27]  J. Lagowski.  National Science Education Standards , 1995 .

[28]  D. Ball,et al.  Reform by the Book: What Is—or Might Be—the Role of Curriculum Materials in Teacher Learning and Instructional Reform? , 1996 .

[29]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. , 1996 .

[30]  Leona Schauble,et al.  Innovations in learning : new environments for education , 1996 .

[31]  R. Shavelson,et al.  Problems and Issues in the Use of Concept Maps in Science Assessment. , 1996 .

[32]  Brian J. Reiser,et al.  Complementary roles of software-based scaffolding and teacher-student interactions in inquiry learning , 1997, CSCL.

[33]  J. Herman.  Large-Scale Assessment in Support of School Reform: Lessons in the Search for Alternative Measures. , 1997 .

[34]  J. Kolodner.  Educational implications of analogy. A view from case-based reasoning. , 1997, The American psychologist.

[35]  Elliot Soloway,et al.  Does the Internet support student inquiry? Don't ask. , 1997, CACM.

[36]  J. Mintzes,et al.  Knowledge restructuring in the life sciences: A longitudinal study of conceptual change in biology , 1997 .

[37]  Jennifer A. Fredricks,et al.  Inquiry in Project-Based Science Classrooms: Initial Attempts by Middle School Students , 1998 .

[38]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  ARTEMIS: learner-centered design of an information seeking environment for K-12 education , 1998, CHI.

[39]  Peter C.-H. Cheng,et al.  Unlocking conceptual learning in mathematics and science with effective representational systems , 1999, Comput. Educ..

[40]  David J. Wood,et al.  Representing, learning and understanding , 1999, Comput. Educ..

[41]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  Constructing Extended Inquiry Projects: Curriculum Materials for Science Education Reform , 2000 .

[42]  Douglas P. Newton,et al.  Do Teachers Support Causal Understanding through their Discourse when Teaching Primary Science , 2000 .

[43]  Barbara Burks Fasse,et al.  Evaluating Classroom Practices Using Qualitative Research Methods: Defining and Refining the Process , 2000 .

[44]  Amy M. Shapiro,et al.  The effect of interactive overviews on the development of conceptual structure in novices learning from hypermedia , 2000 .

[45]  Janet L. Kolodner,et al.  Scaffolding the Development of an Inquiry-Based (Science) Classroom , 2000 .

[46]  E. Soloway,et al.  Creating Usable Innovations in Systemic Reform: Scaling Up Technology-Embedded Project-Based Science in Urban Schools , 2000 .

[47]  Pamela Joy Mulhall,et al.  What is the purpose of this experiment? Or can students learn something from doing experiments? , 2000 .

[48]  A. Graesser,et al.  PREG: Elements of a Model of Question Asking , 2001 .

[49]  Iris Tabak,et al.  BGuILE: Stragtegic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms , 2001 .

[50]  Magdalene Lampert,et al.  Teaching Problems and the Problems of Teaching , 2001 .

[51]  Annemarie Sullivan Palincsar,et al.  The interplay of first-hand and second-hand investigations to model and support the development of scientific knowledge and reasoning , 2001 .

[52]  Deborah Loewenberg Ball,et al.  Making Change: Instruction and its Improvement , 2001 .

[53]  Elliot Soloway,et al.  Middle school children's use of the ARTEMIS digital library , 2002, JCDL '02.

[54]  A. Graesser,et al.  Improving Comprehension Through Discourse Processing , 2002 .

[55]  Hee-Sun Lee,et al.  Technology-Rich Inquiry Science in Urban Classrooms: What are the Barriers to Inquiry Pedagogy? , 2002 .

[56]  R. Sternberg.  What Is an “Expert Student?” , 2003 .

[57]  Design-Based Research: An Emerging Paradigm for Educational Inquiry , 2003 .

[58]  Janet L. Kolodner,et al.  Problem-Based Learning Meets Case-Based Reasoning in the Middle-School Science Classroom: Putting Learning by Design(tm) Into Practice , 2003 .

[59]  Rosemary Luckin.  Between the lines: documenting the multiple dimensions of computer-supported collaborations , 2003, Comput. Educ..

[60]  L. Schauble,et al.  Design Experiments in Educational Research , 2003 .

[61]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  The Nature of Middle School Learners' Science Content Understandings with the Use of On-line Resources , 2003 .

[62]  Sadhana Puntambekar,et al.  Improving Navigation and Learning in Hypertext Environments With Navigable Concept Maps , 2003, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[63]  Paul Cobb,et al.  Learning About Statistical Covariation , 2003 .

[64]  Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver,et al.  Analyzing collaborative knowledge construction: multiple methods for integrated understanding , 2003, Comput. Educ..

[65]  Marcia C. Linn,et al.  Internet Environments for Science Education , 2004 .

[66]  William A. Sandoval,et al.  Mapping Trade-Offs in Teachers' Integration of Technology-Supported Inquiry in High School Science Classes , 2004 .

[67]  Iris Tabak,et al.  The Teacher as Partner: Exploring Participant Structures, Symmetry, and Identity Work in Scaffolding , 2004 .

[68]  R. Azevedo,et al.  Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students' learning with hypermedia? , 2004 .

[69]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  Enacting Reform-Based Science Materials: The Range of Teacher Enactments in Reform Classrooms , 2005 .

[70]  J. Leach,et al.  TEACHING ABOUT THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF SCIENCE IN SCHOOL SCIENCE CLASSROOMS: CASE STUDIES OF TEACHERS' EXPERIENCES , 2005 .

[71]  Marcia C. Linn,et al.  The Knowledge Integration Perspective on Learning and Instruction , 2005 .

[72]  J. Krajcik,et al.  Designing Educative Curriculum Materials to Promote Teacher Learning , 2005 .

[73]  James H. Wandersee,et al.  Identifying Critical Junctures in Learning in a College Course on Evolution. , 2007 .

[74]  C A Nelson,et al.  Learning to Learn , 2017, Encyclopedia of Machine Learning and Data Mining.