A REVIEW OF INQUIRY BASED SCIENCE INSTRUCTION REFORM …

A REVIEW OF INQUIRY BASED SCIENCE INSTRUCTION REFORM

Lorry A. Fitzpatrick

A Thesis Submitted to the University of North Carolina Wilmington in Partial Fulfillment

for the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Education

Department of Education Leadership

University of North Carolina Wilmington

2012

Approved by

Advisory Committee

Marsha Carr Martin Kozloff

Susan Catapano Chair

Accepted by

Dean, Graduate School

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... iv

DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................ v

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... vi

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1

Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 1

Relevant Literature ....................................................................................................................... 2

Problem Statement ..................................................................................................................... 13

METHODS ................................................................................................................................... 14

Research Design ......................................................................................................................... 14

Data Collection .......................................................................................................................... 14

Profile and Statistics of Respondents ......................................................................................... 15

Reliability and Validity of Survey Items ................................................................................... 15

Limitations of the Study ............................................................................................................. 17

Ethical Considerations ............................................................................................................... 17

RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................... 18

Survey Response Data ............................................................................................................... 20

Findings ...................................................................................................................................... 21

CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................... 30

Implications ................................................................................................................................ 30

Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 30

Summary .................................................................................................................................... 31

LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................................. 32

APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................... 37

Appendix A. Survey Short Form ............................................................................................... 37

Appendix B. Survey Long Form ................................................................................................ 40

iii

ABSTRACT In the United States and specifically, North Carolina, there has been concern raised about

the achievement of students in science. This is especially and increasingly true as achievement

data has become readily available. This document reviews two aspects of this concern. The first

is a literature review of education reform both in general and secondary school science from an

historic and then an instructional perspective. The second is the analysis of electronic survey

data gathered from secondary science teachers in northeast North Carolina regarding classroom

instructional practice. Although serious reform efforts have been made since the early 1980’s,

there remains a gap between documented recommendations, governing body support and

classroom practice. In this time of teacher accountability, these contradictions in execution

toward educational objectives will continue to have far-reaching negative impact on students,

teachers and school districts.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my thanks to several people in the science education community.

First to Larry Dukerich of the American Modeling Teachers Association and Arizona State

University who first introduced me to the logic and strategies of what students of chemistry

should learn, why they should learn it, how it makes sense to teach it and the research that

supports teaching with modeling. Next to Scott Ragan from The Science House at North

Carolina State University in Raleigh, NC for encouraging and including me in many professional

development opportunities to enrich and enhance my teaching skills. Sincere appreciation goes

out to Rebecca Stanley, colleague, for her special brand of humor, camaraderie, sarcasm, support

and friendship.

Particular thanks go to my husband, Jim and my children, Jay, Colin and Tara. Their

patience, help and unwavering belief in me are invaluable. Additional thanks go to my parents

and sisters who have always helped me realize exactly who I was supposed to become. Also,

special thanks go to the Walker, Iacovone and Firetti families, for their friendship and

encouragement and to my former students for challenging me each and every day to be a better

teacher.

Finally, I would like to thank my committee for their guidance and assistance throughout

the thesis process.

v

DEDICATION This work is dedicated to Mr. Ralph Henry, retired teacher of physics at North Kingstown

Senior High School. Through his enthusiasm and skill Mr. Henry, has helped countless students

who were not necessarily interested in science, including me, discover their inner geek.

vi

LIST OF TABLES Table Page

1 Respondent content teaching experience by range of years .................................................. 18

2 Respondent path to content area teaching licensure .............................................................. 18

3 Respondent content teaching experience by general area and level ...................................... 19

4 Respondent content teaching experience by subject .............................................................. 19

5 Survey distribution and response rates by county ................................................................... 20

6 Survey response rate by school level placement .................................................................... 21

7 Responses regarding class room teaching practice ................................................................ 22

8 Frequency of classroom use of inquiry tools .................................................................... 24-25

9 Frequency of classroom application of inquiry strategies ..................................................... 27

10 Impediments to using inquiry-based lessons in the science classroom ................................. 29

INTRODUCTION

Overview

Inquiry, according to Webster’s Dictionary is 1: examination into facts or principles:

research; 2: a request for information; 3: a systematic investigation often of a matter of public

interest. The North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) directs that “The goal of

the North Carolina Standard Course of Study (NCSOCS) for Science is to achieve scientific

literacy” (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2007). Further, “The National

Science Education Standards define scientific literacy as "the knowledge and understanding of

scientific concepts and processes required for scientific decision making, participation in civic

and cultural affairs, and economic productivity". (National Research Council, 1996, p. 22)

Indeed, since the mid 1950’s a continuing concern has been the effect of quality science

education in public schools on the ability of Americans to make sound decisions regarding

national security, economic growth, and key political issues. In addition, apprehension has been

the ramification of declining science achievement on world leadership and American

employability (Hennessey, 2002; National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). It

has even been claimed that the “welfare of the nation and the individual will be improved when

all citizens have sufficient understanding of science to make soundly based personal, civic and

professional decisions” (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1990, p. vii).

There are many sources of scholarly literature supporting the approach that active science

learning integrates the need for students to participate in the nature of science by recalling and

using accepted science knowledge, their past science learning and their reasoning strategies, as a

scaffold to build understanding. Recent research has identified several key strategies for

teaching nature of science, often reflecting general principles of effective learning. First, be

2

explicit. Second, guide student reflection. The third and last basic strategy for teaching science

is: use authentic examples. Namely, draw on real science (Allchin, 2011). Science teachers and

science education literature are full of ideas in the most appropriate or effective ways to teach

scientific facts, principles, and concepts but most commonly expressed is the idea that learning

science is a participatory endeavor. “In the National Science Education Standards, the term

“active process” implies physical and mental activity. Hands-on activities are not enough—

students also must have “minds-on” experiences” (National Research Council, 1996, p. 20).

This is (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) the basis for use of the term

‘inquiry’ in regard to science education.

Relevant Literature

Historical Perspective. Since the 1930’s American schools have stumbled from crisis to

crisis and their internal confusion and aimlessness remains intact. Crises such as heated

pedagogical battles between progressive educators and traditionalists, critical shortages of

teachers and buildings, low teacher salaries and poorly qualified teachers (Ravitch, 1981).

Reforms truly began to gain momentum in the 1950’s. Nearly every document regarding the

motivation of reform of science instruction in the U.S. names the launch of the first Sputnik

orbiting artificial satellite on October 4, 1957 as the cornerstone event.

In the 1950’s, the US federal government established the National Science Foundation

(NSF). However its concentration was on science and engineering graduate level studies. After

the launch of Sputnik, NSF funding substantially increased resulting in a greater focus on

elementary and secondary education through curriculum development and teacher training.

Among the many objectives of Title III of the 1958 of the National Defense Education Act

(NDEA) was the modernization of public school laboratories and curriculum. Through the NSF

3

curriculum efforts in the 1950’s and 1960’s science education practices encouraged discovery

through experimentation rather than memorization of formulas and theorems, called conceptual

insight (Rosenblatt, 1982). Today, this might be called inquiry-based learning. However, the

federal support for the professional development motivated in the post-Sputnik era and mostly

funded by the NSF began its decline by 1968 and was nearly eliminated by 1975. Contributing to

the decline in science education quality in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s were the

overshadowing concerns regarding poverty, rights of minorities and the handicapped as well as

the war in Vietnam (Rosenblatt, 1982).

In the 1970’s with SAT scores continuing to drop concerns were rising due to seemingly

acceptable norms including high student absenteeism, minimal instructional time during the

school day, and little homework assigned. Curricula were watered down to accommodate

elective and life skill courses and low enrollment levels led to low high school graduation rates

(Ravitch, 1981). A back to basics attitude began to prevail emphasizing fundamentals and

traditional teaching methods but also leading to standardized minimal competency requirements

(Rosenblatt, 1982).

Well after the Sputnik inspired science education reforms of the 1960’s the 1983 A

Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform was published by the United States

government and the results were not encouraging (Brady, 2008). During the 1980’s science

education reform again began its rise. Twenty-five years after the Soviet Union launched the first

Sputnik the adequacy of education in America continued to be growing concern of educators,

scientists, industry leaders and citizens. The inadequacies of the American educational system

were seen as a threat posed against the American way of life due to the overall decline of

scientific literacy of the general population. The shortfalls were mainly in math and science

4

education and were attributed to declining student competency, reduction of the minimum

requirements for high school graduation, the shortage of teachers qualified to instruct in these

areas and the poor quality and inadequate supplies of instructional materials, (Hennessey, 2002;

(Ravitch, 1981; Rosenblatt, 1982).

The shortage of qualified math and science teachers was blamed on teacher

disillusionment with teaching due to low pay, perceptions of their status as professionals and

general lack of student motivation, as well as industry luring them away from education with

higher salaries (Handelsman, et al., 2004; Price, 2008). Evidence of the math and science

education crisis came in the form of lower academic standards, and the social promotion of

students from one grade to another. In addition, 50% of high school graduates had never taken

physics or chemistry courses and some took no math courses at all. Adding to this was the

reduction in admission standards by many colleges and universities in order to maintain

enrollment numbers (American Educational Research Association, 2007; Hennessey, 2002).

In response, the Carnegie Foundation published A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the

21st Century in May 1986. This report of the Task Force on Teaching as a Profession cited the

need for all of America’s children to have access to the best possible education with a focus on

restructuring schools and redefining teaching as a career. Focus was on raising standards for

teacher preparation and performance and improving equitability in compensation, opportunity

and professionalism for teachers (Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, 1986). Also

published in 1986, Tomorrows Teachers: A Report of the Holmes Group. This study covered the

necessary reforms of teacher education and the teaching profession, namely teacher preparation,

on-going professional development, and standards for teacher assessment.

In 1989, The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) introduced

5

Project 2061 with a primary goal of promoting national scientific literacy. The AAAS published

a report called Science for All Americans: Education for a Changing Future stressing that

science education should be founded on scientific teaching and focus on habits of mind (Lee &

Paik, 2000). The report stressed that science education should “involve active learning strategies

to engage students in the process of science (should use) teaching methods that have been

systematically tested and shown to reach diverse students” (Handelsman, et al., 2004). At the

same time the Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics were published by

the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) as well as Everybody Counts by the

NRC in both of which mathematics educators and mathematicians were pioneers on the subject

of national standards (National Research Council, 1996). Thus began the renewed task for

scientists and science educators to define the outcomes for science education in the U.S.

In 1990 The Liberal Art of Science: Agenda for Action generated “recommendations of

goals for liberal education in the sciences as well as the multidisciplinary curriculum and

teaching strategies necessary to achieve them” (American Association for the Advancement of

Science, 1990, p. viii). During the 1990’s, several drafts of reform vehicles were introduced

including the NSTA’s first Scope & Sequence in 1992 and in 1993 the AAAS companion report

to Science for All Americans, Benchmark for Science Literacy: A Tool for Curriculum Reform.

The development of Benchmarks for Science Literacy, from AAAS and the National Science

Education Standards by the National Research Council (NRC) in 1996 were intended to guide

the reforms. “In the National Science Education Standards, the NRC spelled out what all students

should know and be able to do in science at grades K-4, 5-8, and 9-12. Its focus on inquiry-based

science, rather than memorization was somewhat controversial at the time, but it has been shown

to be more effective as a model for teaching science, if less amenable to multiple-choice tests”

6

(Brady, 2008). Contrary to AAAS’s Science for all Americans which emphasized the habits of

mind of scientists, the National Science Education Standards focused on the importance for

students to recognize, understand be able to accomplish and scientific inquiry (Lee & Paik,

2000).

In 1994, congress approved two pieces of legislation to raise the levels of student

achievement in America. One was Improving America’s School Act, the other, Goals 2000:

Educate America Act “To improve learning and teaching by providing a national framework for

education reform; to promote the research, consensus building, and systemic changes needed to

ensure equitable educational opportunities and high levels of educational achievement for all

students; to provide a framework for reauthorization of all federal education programs; to

promote the development and adoption of a voluntary national system of skill standards and

certifications; and for other purposes” (U.S. Department of Education, 1994). A study first

conducted in1995, verified the need for changes to how science was being taught. The Trends in

International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS), provided reliable and timely data on the

mathematics and science achievement of U.S. 4th and 8th grade students compared to that of

students in other countries (American Educational Research Association, 2007; Hennessey,

2002). This study has been repeated in 1999, 2003, and in 2007. These studies helped lead the

way to more legislation regarding educational reform. In 2001, the No Child Left Behind Act

(NCLB), produced sweeping reforms in teacher accountability and achievement for students and

in 2007 the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology,

Education and Science Act (COMPETES) which increased federal support for math and science,

specifically funding subsidies for public STEM High Schools and for scholarships for potential

math and science teachers and for current math and science teachers to upgrade their skills

7

(Price, 2008).

In the new millennium there have been several protocols developed to support inquiry-

based learning, improving upon the 1990’s Problem Based Learning (PBL) curriculum. Among

them were the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH), Full Option Science System, Case study

Science, the Science-technology-environment-society (STES) interface, Science, Technology

and Environment in Modern Society (STEMS) now science, technology, engineering, and

mathematics (STEM). The SWH protocol for example is “structured so that students engage in

reasoning and transforming evidence into knowledge claims in parallel with scientists’ reasoning

and writing” (Akkus, Gunel, & Hand, 2007).

In 2006 the NRC’s How Children Learn Science publication outlined a clear model of

science instruction and explained and its research documented effectiveness. Even at the

university level changes have been made to science instruction. Many of these programs are

designed to both emulate the experience of scientists while artfully guiding students through

science content. Colleges around the country are encouraging the development of science

courses based upon inquiry. An example at the college level is an actual student research

expedition assigned by Frank Heppner at the University of Rhode Island. Some of the key

benefits are “valuable in terms of helping [students] discover why scientific research takes as

long as it does, and why being able to deal with bureaucracy, repeated frustration, and apparently

intractable obstacles are key skills for a professional scientist” and “the number of decisions that

would be required, and the necessity for developing a workable method for arriving at decisions

in a group, safety, logistics, transportation, data gathering, data reduction, etc. but the largest

unpleasant surprise came when [he] asked how they proposed to pay for this research. This

would be cooperative learning with a vengeance” (Heppner, 1996). There are other whole

8

course examples such as the Calculus based Physics without Lecture at Dickinson University;

SCALE-UP (physics) at N.C. State University; and Workshop Biology at the University of

Oregon (Handelsman, et al., 2004, p. 522). Universities and school districts are teaming up to

assist teachers in transitioning to teaching science using scientific thinking strategies. One of the

most promising of these is the Modeling Instruction in High School Science originating in 1994

at Arizona State University (Arizona State University, 2010).

Instructional Perspective. Science teachers in the United States today have more resources,

greater availability of scientific and educational research and more guidance from governing

authorities of end goals than ever in our history. Why, then, does there remain a gap in the

performance of American science students as compared to their contemporaries within the U.S.

and around the world and what must be done to close it (Metz, 2008)? The solution appears to

lie not in what we teach, but in how we teach it. For years science teachers have worked to

improve science education by teaching science through doing science. This is not a new concept.

As early as 1968, the well-known behaviorist, B.F. Skinner, wrote an article about this very

issue. “We cannot improve education to any great extent by finding more good teachers and

more good students. We need to find practices which permit all teachers to teach well and under

which all students learn as efficiently as their talents permit” (Skinner, 1968, p. 705). The tenets

of Free and Public Education and No Child Left Behind, which “emphasizes that reform of

teacher preparation is part of an urgent national commitment to bring high-quality teacher

candidates into the classroom” (Mangrubang, 2004, p. 292) are not new either.

Traditionally, “most introductory (science) courses rely on "transmission-of information"

lectures and "cookbook" laboratory exercises — techniques that are not highly effective in

fostering conceptual understanding or scientific reasoning. There is mounting evidence that

9

supplementing or replacing lectures with active learning strategies and engaging students in

discovery and scientific process improves learning and knowledge retention. (Handelsman, et al.,

2004, p. 522)

Many experienced science teachers are accustomed to being the giver of knowledge and the

students simply as recipients. This kind of thinking no longer assists students in our ever

changing, and technology dependent world. In addition to content standards, what students are

expected to know and be able to do, schools are responsible for promoting twenty-first century

skills. In the United States this means “schools must move beyond a focus on basic competency

in core subjects to promoting understanding of academic content at much higher levels by

weaving 21st century interdisciplinary themes into core subjects: Global Awareness, Financial,

Economic, Business and Entrepreneurial Literacy, Civic Literacy, Health Literacy” (Partnership

for 21st Century Skills, 2007). These skills include learning and innovation skills: creativity and

innovation, critical thinking and problem solving, communication and collaboration;

information, media and technology skills: information, communications and media literacy; life

and career skills: Flexibility, adaptability, initiative and self-direction, social and cross cultural

skills, accountability, productivity, leadership and responsibility (Partnership for 21st Century

Skills, 2007). Traditional teaching strategies will not promote these skills. Reform in science

education should be founded on "scientific teaching," in which teaching is approached with the

same rigor as science at its best.

Good science education involves active learning strategies to engage students in the

process of science and teaching methods that have been systematically tested and shown to reach

diverse students (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1990). Through

guided inquiry, students develop or construct an understanding of a concept for themselves, with

10

the teacher facilitating the classroom activities and discussion (Uno, 1990). When science

teachers use strategies that require students to be both physically and mentally engaged, they

facilitate the active construction of meaning” (Clough & Clark, 1994).

A concern of science teachers as well as administrators, and legislators, is that teaching

science using inquiry strategies, as the primary method of instruction will reduce the amount of

content able to be covered. Over short periods of time, especially in the sciences, incredible

progress and discovery is made and documented. It is not realistic to expect that students learn

all traditional science content in addition to modern discoveries and technologies in the same,

and sometimes smaller, time frame that students followed twenty years ago. Interactive

approaches used during large lecture classes significantly enrich learning. This is worthwhile

even with the possible reduction in coverage of specific content due to the time necessary to

conduct inquiry-based activities. In addition, there is no loss in knowledge acquisition as

determined by standardized exams (Allred, Brewer, & Ebert-May, 1997).

Promoting the utilization of inquiry-based instruction in secondary science education is

not a recommendation to teach using this single instructional strategy to the exclusion of direct

instruction, or any other instructional strategy. This should not be a viewed as a continuation of

the conflict between advocating progressive versus traditional instructional methods. It is not a

suggestion that teachers utilize unguided instruction “based on the assumption of having learners

construct their own solutions” (Kirschner, Sweller, & and Clark, 2006). According to prominent

biochemist and former president of the National Academy of Science, Bruce Alberts, “teaching

science as inquiry is, at a minimum allowing students to conceptualize a problem that was solved

by a scientific discovery, and then forcing them to wrestle with possible answers to the problem

before they are told the answer” (Alberts, 2000, p. 4). Running parallel is the stance for the

11

exclusive use of explicit learning is the argument that mathematical processes should only be

taught by standard algorithm (Math Experts - Q&A, 2011). This idea marginally applies to the

secondary science classroom. It is only learning how to use and apply mathematical processes,

not learning the processes themselves, to help explain natural phenomena that should be of

concern in a secondary science classroom. Ideally, the sequencing of curriculum ensures that

middle and high school students acquire the necessary math skills prior to needing them in the

study of the sciences.

Various philosophies on teaching aspects of science by mirroring methods of scientists

have been often been lumped together as though identical in basis and implementation. There

have been several viewpoints in the evolution of including scientific methodology in the science

classroom. Labels such as discovery learning, problem-based learning, inquiry learning,

experiential learning theory and all often combined, simplified and often condemned as

constructivist learning theory. Using the term ‘unguided instruction’ in the science classroom

would imply that the teacher is not engaged in teaching and that would not only be unsafe, it

would be unprofessional and unethical. Using inquiry strategies, with intentional scaffolding,

careful crafting direction and assessment, mimics some of what scientists do in actuality. That is

not the same thing as “assum(ing) that knowledge can best be acquired through experience based

on the procedures of the discipline” (Kirschner, Sweller, & and Clark, 2006). As an example, to

teach a middle school child how to build a birdhouse would instruction begin by giving them a

tree, power saw and hydraulic nail gun and then tell them to have at it? A lesson might begin by

discussing what features a bird needs in a house, next having the child sketch what they think the

house should look like with its dimensions, making a list of the supplies needed, and perhaps

with a visit to the hardware store. It might reasonably be assumed that the child would know

12

what birds were, as well as what wood; nails; glue; sandpaper; etc. are. In addition, for a child’s

first effort, we would likely provide basic (and safe) tools rather than sophisticated equipment

Purposeful science instruction does not involve simply providing a worksheet with a list of

recipe-like steps. Nor does lecturing for ninety minutes, requiring students to take notes and then

build according to what they managed to record. However, chunking the tasks, supervising,

correcting and asking questions along the way would be. Through questioning and discussion at

the outset of the project, any existing knowledge gaps and misconceptions would be revealed so

that the child can be purposefully guided to reach the intended outcome.

This is how realistic inquiry instruction happens. It is not simply including hands on

activities or an alternative to lecture. It is also not exclusively focused on application as assumed

by Kirschner (Kirschner, Sweller, & and Clark, 2006). It involves thinking and speaking about

what is already known, questioning, observation, testing, reflective thought and dialogue. “What

students learn earlier is conspicuously integrated with what they learn today, which prepares

them for what they learn next” and “This order gives students’ participation a clear sense of

meaningfulness; their participation leads to mastery and application” (Kozloff, 2002, p. 14).

What happens in many current secondary science classrooms does not provide for correction of

misconceptions, making inferences to connect new ideas with prior knowledge, or for

generalizing classroom examples to a greater environment. It does not encourage students to

make critical observations or question why something is so, two processes inherent in scientific

study that fosters thinking skills that students need as they approach adulthood.

Through active participation in learning, students establish connections between current

understanding and application of new scientific concepts, ideas, and questions. Students engage

in observation, questioning, informed discussion, planning for problem solving and making

13

decisions based upon solid evidence. “Emphasizing active participation in science learning

means shifting emphasis away from teachers delivering information and merely covering science

topics. The perceived need to include all the topics, vocabulary, and information in textbooks is

in direct conflict with the central goal of having students learn scientific knowledge with

understanding” (National Research Council, 1996, pp. 20-21; Hennessey, 2002, p. 3). Ryder

discusses weaknesses in existing school science curricula. The “presentation of the concepts and

relationships of science (knowledge in science) without any reference to the ways in which these

ideas were developed (knowledge about science)” and that “knowledge about science cannot be

decontextualized; it is only meaningful when elaborated in specific science contexts” (Ryder,

2002, p. 639). This has been the foundation for science education reforms for the past fifty

years.

Many state and federal governments have mandated in such documents as the National

Science Education Standards that inquiry strategies should be the focus of the teaching of science

within school classrooms (National Research Council, 1996). The difficult part for success is

changing teacher practices from perceived traditional ways of teaching to more inquiry-based

approaches (Paik, Zhang, Lundeberg, Eberhardt, Shin, & Zhang, 2011). In their study, Akkus;

Gunel; and Hand (2007), state “the current emphasis for studies on professional development

programs have focused on teacher changes in beliefs and classroom practices” (p. 1746).

Problem Statement

Is secondary science education in the United States and primarily in North Carolina, has

implementation of effective science education reform to incorporate inquiry methods transpired

and if not, what are the primary impediments? This primarily concerns the elimination of

information delivery by lecture or demonstration methods, use of student lab activities that make

14

no connection to real life situations and shallow coverage of concepts with no practical exercise

in scientific problem solving methods.

METHODS

Research Design

This project utilized both quantitative and qualitative data collection tools. The

qualitative aspect required research to gather relevant information from scholarly articles,

journals, interview, and Internet resources regarding science education reform from a historical

perspective. This was followed by compilation of the information in order to analyze the

material and arrive at a more complete understanding, and historical reconstruction, of events

that occurred during the past fifty years in science education in the United States. Through

examination of literature from 1960 to present, the evolution of teaching reform in the sciences,

specifically the use of inquiry-based strategies is illustrated. Most especially examined were the

motivations behind education reforms in the sciences, the research and recommendations from

both government and scientific communities and the assessment of both short and long term

success in reaching established goals. Analysis of assembled information will primarily focus on

identifying common teaching practices, that existed during that time in history, views regarding

their worth, and the transformations of law, professionalism and attitudes devised to promote

student success in science education.

Data Collection

Information was collected from secondary science teachers in Southeastern North

Carolina using electronic survey methods. Two forms of survey containing thirteen questions

were designed using Microsoft Excel. One included features such as drop down menus and

check boxes for ease of use and efficiency of time spent by both the survey recipients and the

15

surveyor (Appendix A, Figures 1-3). The second was a slightly longer length, more manually

utilized form with identical questions and answer choices (Appendix A, Figure 4-7). Both

survey forms were sent to all recipients with the option to complete either one, according to

preference. The documents were sent via email to every middle and high school science teacher

in the counties of Brunswick, New Hanover, and Pender, North Carolina with two reminders

requesting completion each at a two-week interval. The survey gathered information regarding

teaching experience, current practices, knowledge and attitudes for teaching secondary science.

Data from survey respondents was quantified, analyzed and compared to past and current

education standards and expectations to determine the extent of reform application.

Profile and Statistics of Respondents

Three counties are located on the corner of the southeastern coast of North Carolina.

These are Brunswick, New Hanover and Pender Counties. These counties cover an approximate

area of 1,908 square miles of urban, suburban and rural area, with a combined population of

362,315 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). In Brunswick County there are four public high schools,

including an Early College high school and a transitional middle / high school and five public

middle schools including one K-8 school. New Hanover County secondary schools comprise six

high schools, including two Early College high schools and eight middle schools. There are four

high schools in Pender County including one Early College high school, as well as four middle

schools.

Reliability and Validity of Survey Items

In assessing the reliability of the research protocol several aspects were considered. One

is equivalence, which “refers to the amount of agreement between two or more instruments that

are administered at nearly the same point in time. Equivalence is measured through a parallel

16

forms procedure in which one administers alternative forms of the same measure to either the

same group or different group of respondents” (Miller, 2011, p. 1). This research protocol

utilized two forms of the survey instrument selected entirely by respondent preference. Either

version of the survey provides identical response options. Since there is a high degree of

correlation between the two forms, there is a resulting high degree of equivalence. Another

aspect is stability. The stability of this trial of research cannot be determined as there has not

been a repeat of the survey with which to compare. A third aspect is internal consistency. In

regard to internal consistency, the extent to which items on the test or instrument are measuring

the same thing, each of the survey items exclusive of respondent profile information (items 5-13)

addresses one aspect of teaching practice that might be applied in the use of inquiry to teach

secondary science. Reliability measures of the survey could have been improved by increasing

the number of items providing overlapping data. However, increasing the size of the survey may

also increase the risk of an even lower response rate.

Validity by definition “is the degree to which an instrument actually measures the

concept or construct it is supposed to measure” (Slavin, 2007, p. 178). There exists some

conflict of response between questions 5 and 6, the first two in the survey that address actual

classroom teaching strategies. Although 4.5% of respondents claim not to use inquiry-based

lessons in response to question #5, 0% responded to the next question that they indeed, don’t

teach inquiry-based lessons. From a teacher with 4-6 years experience in science: “I did similar

research when getting my master's. I found very little evidence that inquiry-based lessons

actually improve student learning. Many of the papers that spoke to inquiry-based learning

actually had very little true science to back up their claims. One study showed there was a slight

improvement in learning for middle-school students. One study showed that frustration felt by

17

less successful students actually caused harm. Therefore, I only use true inquiry-based activities

with students that I believe will benefit and I do so sparingly. Not all labs in science courses are

inquiry based” (Teacher N. H., 2012). These conflicting results alone bring into question whether

the research participants consider the term ‘use inquiry-based lessons in the science classroom’

in the same way.

Limitations of the Study

The concentration of science teachers in one small area of North Carolina does entail

some limitations. Primarily that results may not apply to schools in other areas of the state, or in

other areas of the country, any of which may have different contexts under which they operate.

Secondly, the narrow range of the study does not necessarily afford generalization. Since the

core intent of this study was to provide data intended to gather information regarding application

of curriculum in North Carolina secondary schools, further data should be collected from

representative North Carolina districts based on geographic distribution.

Ethical Considerations

In an effort to protect the privacy and security of the participants in this study, surveys

were anonymous and participation was voluntary. All surveys for this study were sent

electronically only to district e-mail addresses. Access to the data was restricted to the researcher

and the readers of this document. All data was securely stored at all times. In all data reporting

participant names were eliminated and results were written in such way that identity of study

participants would not be revealed. The study was also approved by the author’s advisory

committee chair at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington’s Watson School of

Education.

18

RESULTS

The majority of teacher respondents, 30%, had between four and six years of experience

teaching science, with the next largest group, at 18%, had zero to three years experience. This

means that nearly half of the teachers in the group of respondents would be considered novice

teachers. Of the skilled teachers, those having more than six years of classroom experience,

teachers having ten to twelve years, thirteen to fifteen years or over nineteen years experience

each comprised 11% of the respondent group and 9% of respondent teachers had either seven to

nine or sixteen to eighteen years of teaching experience.

Table 1

Respondent content teaching experience by range of years.

3. How many years have you taught classes in science?

Responses Percentage of Respondents

1-3 8 18% 4-6 13 30% 7-9 4 9%

10-12 5 11% 13-15 5 11% 16-18 4 9% >19 5 11%

Teaching licensure was obtained through an accredited college program for 81% of the

respondent group while the remaining 19% acquired licensure through lateral entry means.

Table 2

Respondent path to content area teaching licensure. 2. Did you earn your certification through an approved college program or through lateral entry?

Number of Responses

Percentage of

Respondents College program 35 81%

Lateral Entry 8 19%

19

Content area experience is widely distributed with nearly three times as many respondents

having taught high school level subjects as compared to middle school level content. The

greatest one area of content concentration was in environmental earth science most closely

followed by biology. This is expected since all high school students in North Carolina are

required to pass courses in both of these subjects in order to graduate from high school.

Table 3

Respondent content teaching experience by general area and level. Life Sciences* Physical Sciences

38.9% 61.1% Middle High

26.19% 67.67% Table 4

Respondent content teaching experience by subject. 4. Which science courses have you taught over your career? Select all that apply.

Number of Responses

Percentage of Respondents

Middle School science - grade 6 12 9.52% Middle School science - grade 7 10 7.94%

Middle School science - grade 8* 11 8.73% Environmental Earth Science 16 12.70%

Physical Science 11 8.73% Biology* 12 9.52%

Chemistry 11 8.73% Physics 4 1.04%

Oceanography* 5 3.97% Anatomy & Physiology* 7 5.56%

Microbiology* 2 1.59% Geology 7 1.55%

AP Environmental Science* 5 3.97% AP Biology* 7 5.56%

AP Chemistry 4 3.17% AP Physics 2 1.59%

Other 6 4.76%

20

Survey Response Data

Closed form surveys with optional open form input areas were sent via electronic mail to

218 secondary science teachers in these three North Carolina counties with equal numbers

representing high school and middle school science teachers. Response rates did not

significantly differ between high school teachers and middle school teachers, with the response

from high school teachers being only slightly higher. Second and third requests for response

were sent via electronic mail two weeks and four weeks after the initial request. Forty-four

teachers returned completed surveys resulting in an overall return rate of 20.18%. Because the

response rate after two weeks was only 6%, an additional request was sent to all non-responders.

At four weeks from the initial survey distribution the response rate remained low, at 12%. A

final request, with an incentive offered for a chance to win a prize drawing from among the pool

of respondents, resulted in the final response rate of just over 20%. Such limited response rates

might be improved in future trials by offering incentives from the outset, distribution to a larger

pool of recipients, or through the use of non-electronic formats.

Table 5

Survey distribution and response rates by county.

County Sent Response Percent

Responses from:

Brunswick 61 12 19.7% New Hanover 124 26 21.0% Pender 33 6 18.2%

Total: 218 44 20.18%

21

Table 6 Survey response rate by school level placement.

School Level / County

High School Response

Middle School Response

Total Response

Brunswick 8 4 12 New Hanover 14 11 25 Pender 2 5 7

Total 24 20 44 Percent response 22.02% 18.35% 20.18%

Findings

Frequency of Teacher Application of Inquiry Strategies. The most common forms of

inquiry-based lesson cited by respondents were all teacher-designed activities, experiments or

demonstrations. This would imply that commercial, district, state, and privately developed

lessons, labs and activities are not sufficient to fulfill the requirements of the intended curriculum

standards. Although the NCDPI does include suggested activities in each of the secondary

science curriculum support documents, a review of the support documents for core science

classes shows that many of these do not involve higher order thinking tasks characterized by

authentic inquiry. As one teacher responded “my definition of "inquiry" changes between my

on-level physical science classes and AP Physics C classes. Not sure if any of them fit your

definition. In the phys. sci. classes, my "inquiry" labs are something like having a balloon race

BEFORE we study Newton's 3rd Law of Motion (action - reaction). They "discover" the

phenomenon first, then we name it in class later” (Teacher N. H., 2012). Another commented “I

teach almost 100% chemistry. I do not do inquiry based labs because most of my students are

just learning the basics lab safety and the use of lab equipment. I do not believe the students

have the necessary background to create their own labs in chemistry which is a TRUE inquiry

lab. They do experience discovery, however, and they do write up lab reports about every 2

22

weeks” (Teacher N. H., 2012). One other type of inquiry strategy, specified by only 1

respondent, was Modeling Instruction in High School Chemistry.

Table 7 Responses regarding class room teaching practice.

5. Do you use inquiry-based lessons in the science classroom?

Total responses 44

Percentage of response

Yes 42 95.5% No 2 4.5%

6. What form(s) do inquiry based lessons take?

Total responses 196


A. Text based activity (dry lab) 23 11.73% B. Teacher designed activity (dry lab) 33 16.84% C. Teacher laboratory demonstration 28 14.29%

D. NCDPI SCOS recommended activity 17 8.67% E. NCDPI SCOS recommended experiment 15 7.65%

F. Student designed experimentation 27 13.78% G. Teacher designed experimentation 33 16.84%

H. Experimentation from other sources 19 9.69% I. Don't teach inquiry based lessons 0 0.00%

J. Other (specify) 1 0.51%

Frequency of Classroom use of Inquiry Lesson Tools. In North Carolina, within each core

content area teachers are required to incorporate 21st Century skills, of which the use of current

technologies is key (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2007). Therefore it is surprising that

more than half of teachers responding to the survey reported that less than 10% of student

laboratory activities involve the use of data collection technology. Especially due to the fact that

high school math classes use graphing calculators as a matter of course. So students are

manipulating and graphing number information, but not in the context of having generated that

information through actual measurement. This shows an alarming disconnect between learning,

application, and likelihood of retention. It is then interesting that only 20% of teachers stated

23

that their students never use microscopes, especially since over 60% of respondents teach

physical science, which does not generally use microscopes, rather than life science which does.

Microscopes, of the type available to schools, are a modern technology. While not considered a

data collection tool in the way that a pH meter, electronic balance or motion sensor might be,

they remain a tool of observation and therefore are used to collect data.

In regard to the use of substance that are considered a chemical safety risk 44%, nearly

half, of all respondents state that they never use them with students. The support documents for

every secondary science course from NCDPI includes safety guidelines and resources, making

the issue of being too unsafe moot. Consider that the only course that might never use chemicals

of any sort is physics and those courses make up less than 3% of respondent classes. Also

consider that the curriculum unit documents provided by NCDPI contain at least one activity or

lab that requires the use of a substance that requires precautions in the remaining courses. This

demonstrates that many science teachers have misconceptions as to what and how to incorporate

aspects of inquiry into their lessons. Not simply because they don’t use chemicals but that there

appears to be misunderstanding of what substances would be considered safety risks. For

example, hot water and lemon juice are substances whose use requires (by law) that students

wear safety glasses. One respondent even commented that it “depends on who is defining safety

risk” (Teacher N. H., 2012). Whether teachers are unaware of safety guidelines, unable or

unwilling to enforce safety rules or unwilling to bother with activities that may require more

vigilance remains an issue served by supervision and professional development.

A bit more than half of the respondents claim student use of use specific laboratory

equipment between twice each week and once per month, but none claimed that they never did.

This might be interpreted several ways. Description of specific lab equipment could be as basic

24

as a wooden meter stick or as sophisticated as a mass spectrometer. The point that at least 9%

use specific lab equipment almost every day is encouraging for the inclusion of inquiry activities

in science classes. On the flip side of this is that 13.6% only use equipment one or two times per

semester. Even for a yearlong class this implies that students are exposed to authentic scientific

activity a minimum of four times, which is a poor circumstance for inspiring potential scientists.

Table 8 Frequency of classroom use of inquiry tools.

7. About what percent of student hands on labs use technology based data collection equipment (TI CBL, Vernier, etc.)

Total responses 45

Percentage of respondent usage

Never 12 26.67% 0% - 10% 16 35.56%

11% - 20% 10 22.22% 21%-30% 4 8.89% 31%-40% 1 2.22% 41%-50% 0 0.00% 51%-60% 2 4.44% 61%-70% 0 0.00% 71%-80% 0 0.00% 81%-90% 0 0.00%

91%-100% 0 0.00% 8. How often are microscopes used by students

(over the course)? Total responses

45 Percentage of

response Nearly every day 2 4.44% Twice per week 2 4.44% Once per week 1 2.22%

Every 2-3 weeks 2 4.44% Once per month 8 17.78%

Once or twice per semester 21 46.67% Never 9 20.00%

25

Table #8 cont. 9. How often do students used chemicals the use of which would be considered safety risks?

Total responses 45


Nearly every day 0 0.00% Twice per week 0 0.00% Once per week 0 0.00%



10. How often do students use specific laboratory type equipment?

Total responses 44





Frequency of Classroom Application of Inquiry Lesson Strategies. Two of the tenets of

scientific literacy as described in the NC SCOS are for students to “Describe, explain, and

predict natural phenomena” and “Pose explanations based on evidence derived from one's own

work” (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2007). In order for students to be able

to do this, as with other learning, takes practice. There are many assessment methods available

to determine understanding of concepts, however, reporting is an important aspect of

communicating in science. Submitting a lab report based upon their work is an integral method

of assessment that has been used in science education for a long time. Respondents to this survey

indicate that written reporting and Socratic discussion are not common practices. Approximately

half indicated that reports are not required more than once every month and most of those only a

few times each semester. Over 10% do not ever use written reporting as a method of assessment

and nearly 30% do not use discussion.

26

With students assessed on writing across the state of NC in grades four, seven and ten,

writing practice in many forms is critical. It is possible that teachers do not know what is

required in a lab report or how to effectively assess a lab report. This may be due, in part to the

continued shortage of qualified science teacher in our state both by non-certified teachers in

science classrooms and by certified science teachers who lack sufficient science education. It

may also be a result of a deficit in student preparation for science writing in the secondary

grades. One high school teacher in Brunswick County commented that “They (the students) don't

know how to write a formal lab report and there's not enough time to teach them how to do so”

(Teacher B. C., 2011). Writing well, in any format, requires instruction and practice from an

early point in a student’s education. This view is not unexpected, as the amount of scientific

information to be learned constantly increases and the amount of time in which to learn it does

not and in some areas has decreased (American Association for the Advancement of Science,

1990), (Hennessey, 2002) and (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). Written

communication of learning as a summative assessment is time consuming and subjective. As the

demand on teacher time increases with the increase of non-instructional obligations, so does the

increased use of objective and quickly accomplished student assessment methods.

Through discourse of concepts, observations and interpretations in a safe and structured

format such as Socratic discussion, students can explore ideas, correct misconceptions and

develop important verbal and social skills. Science education naturally lends itself to this

endeavor as scientists have been presenting, discussing, and disputing the evidence and

interpretation of observations and ideas for centuries. As a formative assessment tool discussion

is a fast and easy way for teachers to gauge understanding. With effective questioning strategies

a teacher can guide a discussion to reveal understanding and stimulate student enthusiasm and

27

interest. Two thirds of teachers indicated that they rarely use Socratic discussion, no more often

then once per month with half of those never do. These examples of the deficit in students

learning science communication skills is yet another example of the importance of improving

science teacher professional support and training.

Table 9

Frequency of classroom application of inquiry strategies. 11. How often do students write

formal lab reports as culmination of an inquiry lesson?

Total responses 45





12. How often are Socratic discussion methods used in your science classroom?

Total responses 44





Impediments to Teaching with Inquiry Based Lessons. Survey recipients were asked to

choose and prioritize the top three issues that impede the incorporation of inquiry strategies in

their lessons. The issue selected, by far, as the primary impediment was the reality of student

conduct and its impact on student safety. It makes sense that the more unruly student behavior in

a class, the increased likelihood an accident will occur during a laboratory activity. Although

28

class size was not addressed in this survey, it remains to be a concern at all school levels for

many school districts in the U.S.

Second to safety, time for preparation of equipment, solutions, and materials was the

most often selected obstacle. As stated above, the rate of scientific discovery continues to

increase with technological development without an increase in available instructional time.

Time constraint was most commonly chosen as the number two and three reasons for not

integrating inquiry into science instruction, and being the overall most common impediment.

Another time issue was provided as an additional comment “The second biggest challenge is the

amount of time for class. My classes are 40 minutes - occasionally I keep them for 80 minutes

(on an A-day B-day type schedule) to do inquiry based lessons” (Teacher P. C., 2011).

The third most commonly designated barrier was the availability of equipment.

Predictably, also high on the list of issues are classroom/laboratory facilities as the availability of

equipment is a part of school science facilities. Among teacher comments were “My main issue

is class size vs. facilities. I teach in a trailer with classes of 22-27 (9th grade) students. There are

no lab benches, sinks, or areas to conduct labs other than in the classroom seating. I do continue

to do labs about once a week, some more inquiry-based and lasting for several days (ex: soil

quality testing next week). It is often not a pleasant experience for me, though, with that class

size in these facilities. However, the students do love them and learn much more” and “In regard

to classroom/laboratory facilities: Difficult to conduct regular lab opportunities in my current

setup” (Teacher P. C., 2011).

The third most commonly selected hindrance was funding. Recently, public schools have

been required to stretch resources further each year while simultaneously mandated with

improving student achievement and ensuring increased teacher accountability. Teachers are

29

managing with smaller budgets for equipment and supplies as well as funding classroom needs

with personal funds. Tax laws do allow for a personal deduction for teacher classroom expenses,

however at $200.00 it probably does not cover actual expenditures. This item elicited more free

answer responses than any other in the survey.

Table 10 Impediments to using inquiry-based lessons in the science classroom.

13. What are some things that impede the use of inquiry based lessons? 1st

2nd

3rd

Total this response

equipment availability 5 11.36% 8 18.18% 7 15.91% 20 45.45%

consumable resource

availability 3 6.82% 3 6.82% 5 11.36% 11 25.00% funding 6 13.64% 5 11.36% 3 6.82% 14 31.82%

student conduct / safety 12 27.27% 6 13.64% 6 13.64% 24 54.55%

self confidence 2 4.55% 1 2.27% 1 2.27% 4 9.09% professional

development 1 2.27% 2 4.55% 3 6.82% 6 13.64% time for

preparation of equipment /

solutions / materials 8 18.18% 9 20.45% 9 20.45% 26 59.09%

classroom /laboratory

facilities 4 9.09% 5 11.36% 3 6.82% 12 27.27% constraints due

to sharing space with other

classes 1 2.27% 1 2.27% 3 6.82% 5 11.36%

30

CONCLUSIONS

Implications

Since one objective of this study was to determine if secondary science educators in one

part of North Carolina have implemented effective science education reforms to incorporate

inquiry methods of instruction, perhaps, as the literature suggests, the reforms themselves that

have been introduced do not adequately address or define the concept of inquiry and

participation in the acquisition of scientific knowledge and thinking. With improvement of

science teachers’ own metacognition regarding their craft through professional development and

undergraduate preparation, attainment levels of student science knowledge must increase. One

comment in particular, illustrates the need for teacher enlightenment “I find that the students in

grade 7 lack prior science experience and knowledge as well as critical thinking and problem

solving skills to engage meaningfully in inquiry based lessons. In general, they are not

motivated to think through a problem/situation when they can be readily given the answer”

(Teacher N. H., 2012). Science class is precisely the place for students learn and improve critical

thinking and problem solving skills by using the processes of science not so that they can use

them.

Recommendations

As seen in the literature, professional development for existing teachers and better

education for prospective teachers regarding instruction incorporating scientific methods should

be a priority if student science achievement is to improve. This is demonstrated by the almost

non-use of available technology, safety awareness, the frequency that students use scientific tools

and the in teaching scientific communication. In addition the time required for science teachers

to prepare effective class activities is far greater in the sciences than any other academic

31

discipline. School districts are obligated to improve and adhere to policy regarding this aspect of

working conditions for science educators if the expectation is improved science achievement.

Summary

The focus on improving science education seems to rest solely on inquiry-based teaching

strategies. The reform questions that have arisen and that still linger are: which strategies

incorporate inquiry; how they are defined; which are most effective; how will teachers learn to

use them; and what resources are required? To bring about real changes in science teaching

methods there must be more than published reports, recommendations and mandates. Change

and the support for that change must come from the top down. Faculty and administrators

should collaborate in their work to overcome the barriers and to create an educational that

enables change. “The reward system must be aligned with the need for reform. Tenure,

sabbaticals, awards, teaching responsibilities, and administrative support should be used to

reinforce those who are teaching with tested and successful methods, learning new methods, or

introducing and analyzing new assessment tools” (Handelsman, et al., 2004).

LITERATURE CITED

Akkus, R., Gunel, M., & Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an inquiry-based approach known as the

science writing heuristic to traditional tcience teaching practices: Are there differences?

International Journal of Science Education , 29 (14), 1745-1765.

Alberts, B. (2000). Some Thoughts of a Scientist on Inquiry? In A. A. Science, Inquiring into

Inquiry Learning and Teaching in Science (pp. 3-13). Washington, DC: American

Association for the Advancement of Science.

Allchin, D. (2011). Teaching Whole Science. The American Biology Teacher , 73 (1), 53-55.

Allred, S., Brewer, C., & Ebert-May, D. (1997). Innovation in large lectures - Teaching for

active learning. Bioscience , 47 (9), 601-607.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). The liberal art of science:

Agenda for action. Retrieved 12 1, 2011, from AAAS Programs, Education, Publications:

http://www.aaas.org/programs/education/about_ehr/pubs/the_liberal_art_of_science.pdf

American Educational Research Association. (2007). Science education that makes sense.

Research Points , 5 (1), 2-3.

Anderson, R., & Mitchner, C. (1994). Handbook of esearch on science teacher education. New

York: Macmillan.

Arizona State University. (2010, October 3). Modeling instruction in high school

physics,chemistry, physical science, and biology. Retrieved November 12, 2010, from

http://modeling.asu.edu/modeling-HS.html

Arrendondo, D., & Rucinski, T. (1997). Using structured interactions in conferences and journals

to promote cogniitive development amongmentors and mentees. Annual Meeting of the

33

American Educational Research Association (p. 39). Chicago, IL: American Educational

Research Association.

Brady, T. (2008, April). Science education: Cassandra's prophecy. Phi Delta Kappan , 605-607.

Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. (1986). A nation prepared:Teachers for the

21st century. The Carnegie Foundation, Task Force on Teaching as a Profession.

Washington, DC: The Carnegie Foundation.

Clough, M., & Clark, R. (1994). Creative Constructivism. Science Teacher , 61 (7), 46-49.

Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R., et al. (2004).

Scientific Teaching. Science , 304 (5670), 521-522.

Hennessey, J. (2002). Teaching Math and Science. CQ Researcher , 12 (30), 697-720.

Heppner, F. (1996). Learning science by doing science. The American Biology Teacher , 58 (6),

372-374.

Kirschner, P. (1992). Epistemology, practical work and academic skills in science education.

Science and Education (1), 273-299.

Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & and Clark, R. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction

Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based,

Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist , 41 (2), 75-86.

Kozloff, M. (2002, 02). Three Requirements of Effective Instruction: Providing Sufficient

Scaffolding, Helping Students Organize and Activate Knowledge, and Sustaining High

Engaged Time. 90. Wilmington, NC.

Lee, O., & Paik, S. (2000). Conceptions of Science Achievement in Major Reform Documents.

School Science and Mathematics , 100 (1), 16-26.

34

Mangrubang, F. (2004). Preparing elementary education majors to teach science using an inquiry

based approach: The full option science system. American Annals of the Deaf , 149 (3),

290-303.

Math Experts - Q&A. (2011, 05 16). The case for standard algorithms. Retrieved 03 31, 2012,

from blogger.com: http://mathexperts-qa.blogspot.com/

Metz, S. (2008, March). Science for all. The Science teacher , 8.

Miller, M. J. (2011). RES 600: Graduate Research Methods. Retrieved march 2012, from

Western International University:

http://michaeljmillerphd.com/res500_lecturenotes/reliability_and_validity.pdf

National Center for Educational Achievement. (2009, March 20). The NCEA Core Practice

Framework: An Organizing Guide to Sustained School Improvement. Retrieved 02 10,

2011, from NCAE Library:

http://www.nc4ea.org/files/organizing_guide_to_sustained_school_improvement-03-20-

09.pdf

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk. (P. J. Denning, Ed.)

Communications of the ACM , 26 (7), 467-478.

National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC:

National Academies Press.

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2007). Science. Retrieved 01 26, 2012, from

NC Standard Course of Study: http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/curriculum/science/

Paik, S., Zhang, M., Lundeberg, M., Eberhardt, J., Shin, T., & Zhang, T. (2011). Supporting

Science Teachers in Alignment with State Curriculum Standards. Journal of Science

Education Technology , 20, 422-434.

35

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2007, 07 23). 21st Century Learning Environments.

Retrieved 02 03, 2012, from 21st Century Skills: www.21stcenturyskills.org

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2007, 07 23). Framework for 21st Century Learning.

Retrieved 12 1, 2011, from 21st Centry Skills:

http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/docs/profdev/resources/skills/framework.pdf

Price, T. (2008, 1 11). Science in America. Retrieved 03 02, 2011, from CQ Researcher:

www.cqresearcher.com

Ravitch, D. (1981, 04 18). The Schools We Deserve. The New Republic , 23-27.

Robers, S., Zhang, J., Truman, J., & Snyder, T. (2010). Indicators of School Crime and Safety:

2010 (NCES 2011-002/ NCJ 230812) . National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.

Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs,

U.S. Department of Justice. , Washington, DC.

Rosenblatt, J. (1982, 09 03). Post-Sputnik Education. Retrieved 03 04, 2012, from Editorial

Research Reports: http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre1982090300

Ryder, J. (2002). School science education for citizenship: strategies for teaching about the

epistemology of science . Journal of Curriculum Studies , 34 (6), 637-658.

Skinner, B. (1968). Teaching science in hgh school - What is wrong? Science , 159 (3816), 704-

710.

Slavin, R. E. (2007). Educational Research in an Age of Accountability. Boston, MA, USA:

Allyn and Bacon.

Teacher, B. C. (2011, 02). Science Teacher. (L. Fitzpatrick, Interviewer)

Teacher, N. H. (2012, 02). Science Teacher. (L. Fitzpatrick, Interviewer)

Teacher, P. C. (2011, 02). Science Teacher. (L. Fitzpatrick, Interviewer)

36

U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). Statae & County Quick Facts. Retrieved 03 14, 2012, from North

Carolina County Selection Map:

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/maps/north_carolina_map.html

U.S. Department of Education. (1994, 01 25). Retrieved 03 25, 2011, from Ed.gov:

http://www2.ed.gov/legislation/GOALS2000/TheAct/index.html

Uno, G. E. (1990). Inquiry in the classroom. Bioscience , 40 (11), 841-843.

APPENDIX

Appendix A. Survey Short Form

Figure 1. Internet survey short form: screen 1.

38


39


40

Appendix B. Survey Long Form

Figure 4. Internet survey long form: screen 1.

41


42


43
