Lee’s conceptual understanding 1

LEE’S GUIDED INQUIRY-BASED LABORATORY

The Effect of Guided Inquiry Laboratory

on

Conceptual Understanding

Miha Lee

California State University, Northridge

Lee’s conceptual understanding 2The Effect of Guided Inquiry Laboratory

on

Conceptual Understanding

Many educational reform efforts in the United States have called for a shift in the

emphasis of science education from memorization of facts and procedures to a deeper

understanding of the subject matter. (American Association for the Advancement of Science,

1993; National Research Council, 1996; National Research Council, 2005) In the same vein, the

National Science Education Standards was released, calling for inquiry as a way in which

“students actively develop their understanding of science by combining scientific knowledge with

reasoning and thinking skills (NRC, 1996, p.2).” Recommendations for improved teaching of

science are solidly rooted in a commitment to teaching both through and about inquiry.

(Crawford, 2000; NRC, 1996; NRC, 2005) Personally, in this Information Age when knowledge

is flooded everywhere, as a chemistry teacher how should I teach my students? I have been

seeking for answers to this question.

Teaching for understanding

To begin this research, I posed a basic question: how students learn science? When I

began to teach, I conceived of learning with understanding as a matter of taking in information

with clarity. Consequently, to ‘make’ my students understand concepts and principles, I explained

Lee’s conceptual understanding 3in detail them with a lot of demonstrations and visual aids. However, it turned out that many

students still had trouble understanding basic concepts of chemistry. What’s wrong with my

teaching? An experienced colleague advised me, “It is not what you say that students learn. They

just learn what they want to learn.” This advice made me realize that teaching should be focused

on what the teacher gets the students to do rather than what the teacher does (Perkins, 1993).

Constructivism also encourages student-centered instruction insisting that learning of

science is the knowledge construction that involves both individual and social processes (Driver,

Asoko, Leach, Mortimer & Scott, 1994; Singer, Marx, Krajcik, & Chambers, 2000). The personal

construction of meaning is a dynamic process that requires the active engagement of the learner

(Holzer, 1994). To be understood, knowledge is directly experienced, constructed, acted upon,

tested, or revised by the learner, but it is the teacher that is responsible for creating a learning

environment (Driver et al, 1994; Holzer, 1994; Perkins, 1993; Vosniadou, Dimitrakopoulou &

Papademetriou, 2001).

But, how do I know if students understand what I teach? According to Perkins

(1993), the more thought demanding performances the student can display, the more confident we

would be that the student understand. It makes me find a way to monitor and evaluate students’

learning.

Importance of laboratory in chemistry education

Lee’s conceptual understanding 4The school science laboratory had been given a central and distinctive role in science

education. It helps students understand abstract concepts and develop reasoning skills and

scientific method of investigation to a degree that cannot be accomplished by lecture or

demonstration alone (Allen, Baker & Ramsden, 1986; Domin, 2007; Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004).

As a result, Korean educational policy requires that the laboratory experiments count for at least

30% of the total score. Indeed, I did a lot of laboratory works with my students as a way to teach

chemistry.

Nevertheless, traditional experiments have been blamed as “cookbook exercises”

that students are not stimulated intellectually and thus little motivated because they use highly

structured materials to verify concepts presented previously in lecture (Allen et al., 1986;

Monteyne & Cracolice, 2004) Frankly speaking, majority of my laboratory activities were

conducted after classroom instructions as verifications of the knowledge students learned, while

my demonstrations were during or before lectures. Admittedly, students in traditional labs can

thoughtlessly follow written instructions and fill in the blanks of data table so that they ascertain

that what the teacher or the textbook told them are true. Then, how can laboratory be integrated

into instruction to promote leaning for understanding?

Guided inquiry laboratory as a solution

With the increasing emphasis on student-centered learning and the importance of

Lee’s conceptual understanding 5laboratory in science education, inquiry-based teaching attracted my attention. Many researches

have provided substantial evidence for the relative ineffectiveness of lecture instruction and for

the relative value obtained with well-designed inquiry laboratory based instruction (Crawford,

2000; Driver et al., 1994; Singer et al., 2000; Vosniadou et al., 2001).

Opportunities to learn science as a process of inquiry has important advantages.

During the investigation, students interact with the physical world, document their observations,

and think about what these observations mean about the physical world. Specifically, developing

scientific knowledge of chemistry challenges us to conceptualize aspects of the world that we do

not directly experience. As a result, students need to be given accessible opportunities to

conceptualize those aspects during laboratory activities (NRC, 2005). It is How Students Learn

(NRC, 2005) that inspired me to use inquiry-based instruction by showing what science learning

experience should be.

Learning experiences need to develop from first-hand, concrete experiences to the

more distant or abstract. Ideas develop from experiences, and technical terms

develop from the ideas and operations that are rooted in those experiences. Students

need opportunities to see where ideas come from, and they need to be held

responsible for knowing and communicating the origins of their knowledge. The

teacher should also bring forth critical questions that are vital to the content being

Lee’s conceptual understanding 6taught. The better questions are those that raise issues about the big ideas important

to deep understanding of the discipline (p.512).

Especially, guided inquiry seems to be a student-centered but effective way to teach

the knowledge and method of chemistry in the practical setting of secondary schools. Guided

inquiry laboratory is defined as an experiment where the students discover the concept for

themselves using their own laboratory data (Allen et al., 1986; Colburn, 2000; Domin, 2007).

Thus, I decided to use guided-inquiry based laboratory as an instructional mode that promotes

conceptual understanding.

Purpose

To teach for understanding, having accurate subject matter knowledge is not

sufficient (Perkins, 1993). It is pedagogical content knowledge that is required for teachers to

have because it is derived from content knowledge that is specifically employed to facilitate

learning. It is the knowledge that teachers have about how to make particular subject matter

comprehensible to particular students, for it is the knowledge of the concepts that students find

most difficult, as well as ways to support their understanding of those concepts. Finally, it

includes ways to assess student knowledge (NRC, 2005). I hope to develop pedagogical content

knowledge through this study to deepen my commitment to teaching for understanding and

sharpen the focus of my teaching efforts.

Lee’s conceptual understanding 7This action research provides me the opportunity to

1. probe systematically students’ prior knowledge regarding metal.

2. design a series of guided-inquiry lab activities and put them into practice.

3. find multiple ways to determine the depth of students’ understanding.

Research questions

The purpose of this research is to examine the following questions:

1. What are the students’ prior knowledge regarding the concept of metal?

2. How do I know whether the students’ conceptual understanding takes place?

3. Is the students’ engagement in the guided inquiry-based laboratory an effective

way in promoting understanding?

Importance of study

While research findings have been helpful in identifying problematic conceptions,

less is known regarding the pace at which students are capable of undergoing conceptual change

with effective instructional experiences (NRC, 2005).

Liew and Treagust (1998) conducted a research in which eighteen 11th grade students

performed three POE tasks, including the expansion of water, solubility of salt, and power and

resistance of light bulbs. They found that POE tasks were effective in capturing a wide range of

students’ prior knowledge and assessing their understanding. Harrison and Treagust (2001)

employed a model based instruction to teach 7 11th grade students in chemistry class for an

Lee’s conceptual understanding 8academic year and found that interpretation of students’ conceptual change required multiple

perspectives to be reliable. Minstrell and Kraus (NRC, 2005) used guided inquiry to foster

conceptual understanding of universal gravitation and related inverse square force law and

showed what it means to teach in a way that is student-centered, knowledge-centered, and

assessment-centered. However, all of them were conducted in clinical conditions and provided

data of few students from detailed case studies for the description of their learning process.

Therefore, there was little information about how to incorporate student experiments in the

school laboratory into instructions to foster conceptual understanding.

On the other hand, Domin (2007) conducted a research to compare the effectiveness

of two types of laboratory instructions – verification and problem-based – in conceptual

development by surveying and interviewing 18 college students after the semesters ended. They

found that students’ preference of each type of laboratory instruction was almost equal and that

they perceived conceptual development to occur at different times depending on the types. Allen,

Baker and Ramsden (1986) conducted a survey of students’ perceptions about the guided inquiry

laboratory in improving reasoning skills for military academy students. Students acknowledged

that the guided inquiry experiments were more difficult but more effective in terms of interest,

development of analytical thinking ability, and problem solving than verification experiments.

However, all of these researches were for college level students and didn’t mention about what

Lee’s conceptual understanding 9they learned from the experiments.

Thus, I will create a learning environment for high school students that is supposed

to facilitate conceptual change by employing guided-inquiry experiments, and find out if this

approach is helpful for students to understand content knowledge.

Theoretical framework

Understanding scientific knowledge often requires a change in what people notice

and understand about everyday phenomena (NRC, 2005). Although learners make sense of

scientific knowledge, it is the teacher who is responsible for providing an effective learning

environment to promote their conceptual changes (Driver et al., 1994; NRC, 2005; Singer et al.,

2000; Vosniadou et al., 2001) Consequently, to create a learning environment that allows students

to undergo important changes in their thinking and understanding, first I need to research the

roles of prior knowledge in students’ learning process. Second, I need to study about the learning

process, especially the theory of conceptual change. Third, I need to review the features of guided

inquiry as a way.

Roles of prior knowledge

Prior knowledge is a kind of preconceptions. According to research, everybody, even

young infants, has preconceptions and these preconceptions shape subsequent learning. New

understandings are constructed on a foundation of existing understandings and experiences.

Lee’s conceptual understanding 10Students come to the science classroom with preconceptions about how the world works. If their

initial understanding is not engaged, they may fail to grasp the new concepts and information, or

they may learn them for purposes of a test (NRC, 2005). Indeed, the roles prior knowledge plays

in science learning can be considered as both necessary and problematic (Fisher, 2004; Taber,

2001).

One aspect of prior knowledge is a foundation for learning that should be mastered

before new information is to be taught (Fisher, 2004; Taber, 2001). Appropriate prior knowledge

provides an anchor to assimilate new knowledge into cognitive structure (Roshelle, 1995; Taber,

2001). In this sense, prior knowledge is preinstructional knowledge that students have learned

from the prior formal educations (Leach & Scott, 2003; Taber, 2001). In science, the degree of

sequential dependence of the content is so great that the role of prior knowledge is seen as a

starting point for subsequent learning. Fensham (1972) argued that because knowledge has

logical and psychological links, the possibility of sequential and vertical transfer of learning

would be enhanced by suitable arrangements and presentations. Therefore, in order for

meaningful learning to take place, it is necessary both for the learner to hold some relevant

prerequisite knowledge, and for the teacher to activate and ‘make the connection’ of prior

knowledge to new concepts to help the learner recognize its relevance. If either of these

conditions is not met, then rote learning will take place (Taber, 2001).

Lee’s conceptual understanding 11The other aspect of prior knowledge is a barrier to learning that should be confronted

and restructured in order for scientific knowledge to be understood (Fisher, 2004; Roschelle,

1995; Taber, 2001). Research shows that it is very common for students to enter science

classroom already holding ideas that are relevant to the topic being taught, but at odds with

accepted curriculum knowledge (Fensham, 1972; Driver et al, 1994; Fisher, 2004; Taber, 2001)

These ideas come from not only the pervious instruction but also the intuitive ideas that students

have developed from everyday experiences (Driver et al, 1994; Fisher, 2004; Taber, 2001).

Fensham (1972) pointed out that the learner’s prior knowledge could be a wrong anchor that

causes misunderstanding of new knowledge. In addition, the preconceptions can lead students to

simply not notice, quickly dismiss, or not believe what they do not expect to see (NRC, 2005;

Roschelle, 1995).

However, Roschelle (1995) maintained that prior knowledge be properly understood

not as causes of errors or success, but rather as the raw material that conditions all learning.

Teachers should support students in activating and restructuring prior knowledge so that it can be

used flexibly to make sense of and appreciate the world around them (NRC, 2005). Student

performance improves when instructions are designed to deal with specific difficulties revealed

in studies of students' prior knowledge. Leach and Scott (2003) advised that the teaching

sequence be designed on the basis of a detailed conceptual analysis of the science to be taught

Lee’s conceptual understanding 12and students' typical prior knowledge. Through this analysis, curricular goals can be identified

and teaching activities designed and evaluated.

Diagnosing prior knowledge

When students are asked to elicit their ideas about science phenomena, they have an

opportunity to articulate and clarify their ideas and to be motivated to find the correct science

views. Providing tools, activities and learning environments for representing prior knowledge can

enable learners to reflect more systematically on prior knowledge (Roschelle, 1995). Fisher

(2004) proposed that for students to effectively express their prior knowledge, three conditions be

met. First, students must be generating knowledge from their heads, without reference to texts or

other instructional materials. Second, they must feel free to express their thoughts, knowing they

will not be graded with respect to scientific correctness. Third, they must be sufficiently familiar

with the tool so as to be able to express their knowledge effectively. Under these conditions,

students are willing to include personal as well as objective knowledge.

This research serve the tools as forms of the pretest and the worksheets of inquiry

labs to uncover the students’ prior knowledge. Especially, inquiry-based instruction is used to

probe students’ prior knowledge by asking students to make hypotheses or predictions about the

driving and subquestions and to give a qualitative explanation about data analysis on the

worksheets. It is important that the questions should ask students to express their understanding,

Lee’s conceptual understanding 13not factual knowledge and the ability of mathematical calculations (Fisher, 2004; Taber, 2001;

Harrison & Treagust, 2001). The prior knowledge revealed in this research informs me and other

teachers what to prepare for remedial instructions on the concept of metal.

The concept of conceptual understanding

Since the negative role of prior knowledge in science learning was revealed, science

education community have made attempts to restructure problematic prior knowledge using

remedial instructions. Teachers explicitly challenged students’ alternative ideas by focusing on

discrepancy or anomaly that were difficult to explain in students’ existing schemes, or by

exploring any logical faults or limitations that could be overcome by adopting the scientific view.

Posner (as cited in Harrison & Treagust, 2001) explained the conceptual change focusing on the

incompatibility between two distinct and equally well-organized explanatory systems, one of

which need to be abandoned in favor of the other. In the conceptual change model, student

dissatisfaction with a preconception was believed to initiate dramatic conceptual change. If the

learner is dissatisfied with his/her prior conception and a replacement conception is available,

accommodation of the new conception may follow. Consequently, the classical meaning of

conceptual change was a revolutionary exchange of pre-instructional conceptions for the science

concepts (Appleton, 1997; Duit & Treagust, 2003; Vosniadou et al., 2001).

On the contrary, the results of recent studies suggest that conceptual change is

Lee’s conceptual understanding 14evolutionary. Conceptual change is a slow revision of an initial conceptual system through the

gradual incorporation of elements of the scientific explanations, and there seems to be many

learning paths from students’ prior knowledge to the science concepts to be learned. As a result,

the term ‘conceptual change’ is now used to describe the complex process of learning in such

domains where the pre-instructional conceptual structures of the learners have to be

fundamentally restructured in order to allow understanding of the intended knowledge (Appleton,

1997; Duit & Treagust, 2003; Vosniadou et al., 2001).

Thus, in this paper, conceptual change, conceptual understanding, knowledge

acquisition, and conceptual development are utilized to express the same meaning as the science

learning process.

The process of conceptual change

Student knowledge of important concepts can range from rote learning to deep

relational understanding. Conceptual change can happen at a number of levels, but in general,

student learning involves three different depths of changes. Most commonly, learners assimilate

additional experience to their current theories and practices without conflict. This is called

knowledge accretion. However, somewhat less frequently, an experience causes a small cognitive

shock that leads the learner to put ideas together differently. This is weak knowledge

restructuring or conceptual capture called by Hewson (as cited in Harrison & Treagust, 2001).

Lee’s conceptual understanding 15Much more rarely, learners undertake major transformations of thought that affect everything

from fundamental assumptions to their ways of seeing, conceiving, and talking about their

experience. This is called strong/radical knowledge restructuring or conceptual understanding,

which is accommodation of new concept. While rare, this third kind of change is most profound

and highly valued in science education (Harrison & Treagust, 2001; Rochelle, 1995; Vosniadou et

al., 2001).

Investigation of students’ conceptual changes

Conceptual change should be monitored in a qualitative way. Researches evidence

that students who were good at solving questions by computing, when asked to think

qualitatively about conceptions, were basing their thinking on ideas that were reasonable from

their everyday perspective which were discrepant from scientific views (NRC, 2005). It was only

when their conceptual structure was probed in multiple ways that the differences in their

understanding emerged. Understanding conceptual development needs information collected

from independent perspectives; for example, classroom interactions, pretests and posttests,

problem solving, modeling and practical activities, open-ended essays and interviews. The use of

composite data from at least some of these sources enhances the quality of conceptual

assessments because different tasks activate different processes and levels of understanding

(Harrison & Treagust, 2001; Duit & Treagust, 2003).

Lee’s conceptual understanding 16For this study, the comparison of the pre and post tests and the analysis of lab

worksheets are used to monitor and interpret students’ learning.

Laboratory for conceptual change

For instruction to be successful, it is important to select an appropriate type of

laboratory to its purpose (Domin, 2007). In this study, my purpose of using guided inquiry

laboratory is to promote understanding of content knowledge, not inquiry itself. Some types of

laboratory activity proved to be effective in inducing conceptual change by identifying prior

knowledge and providing discrepancy and anomaly. Learning cycle model (Sunel, n.d.) and

Predictive-Observe-Explain (POE) (Liew & Treagust, 1998) were attempts to use the laboratory

activities with concrete objects for this purpose. Guided inquiry-based teaching also supports

students in their conceptual changes because investigation involves the interaction of content and

process (NRC, 2005). It may appear to be more about process because what students observe is a

function of when, how, and with what tools we choose to observe. At the same time, what

students observe is also a function of what they expect to observe, and how they interpret their

observation is clearly influenced by what they already know and believe about the physical world

(NRC, 2005).

The concept of guided inquiry laboratory

The nature of laboratory instruction is important because it determines the learning

Lee’s conceptual understanding 17environment that may lead to different learning outcomes (Domin, 2007; Vosniadou et al., 2001).

There may be many types of laboratory instruction, but Domin (2001, 2007) offered the useful

taxonomy of laboratory instruction styles to highlight the distinguishing features of each style. In

his classification of laboratory instruction, he focused on three descriptors: outcome, approach,

and procedure; there were four distinct styles of laboratory instruction: expository, inquiry,

discovery, and problem-based.

According to Domin’s taxonomy, the guided-inquiry (discovery) laboratory is a

heuristic approach in which the outcome of experiment is predetermined by the teacher, but

students don’t know the expected outcome; its inductive nature help students develop a general

understanding of the underlying concepts by studying a specific example of a phenomenon

(Domin, 2001; Domin, 2007). However, there seems to be some dispute about the procedure in

the guided inquiry. Domin (2001, 2007) argued that the procedure of experiments was given by

the teacher or a manual, but Colburn (2000) insisted in his classification of inquiry that it should

be devised by the students because he has another type of inquiry– structured inquiry that is

similar to discovery lab of Domin’s taxonomy. However, I found there could be a variation about

the procedure depending on the ability of students. College students generated procedures, but

secondary students were given by the instructor (Allen et al., 1986; Domin, 2001; Colburn, 2000;

NRC, 2005).

Lee’s conceptual understanding 18Monteyne and Cracolice (2004) pointed, “A key element of guided inquiry is that

data analysis is left to the student, but not the data collection (p.1159).” The process of analysis is

precisely what defines inquiry and creates an environment in which students have the opportunity

to develop their thinking skills and conceptual understandings. It is also critical to have a

knowledgeable laboratory instructor who can mediate students’ thinking skills development and

knowledge acquisition (Monteyne & Cracolice, 2004).

Advantages of guided inquiry laboratory

Free inquiry is desirable, but when understanding requires careful attention and

logical development, guided inquiry is best, especially when the teacher is responsible for the

learning of 30 or more students (NRC, 2005). Besides, the ability and cognitive developmental

level of students should be taken into consideration when specific type of laboratory instruction is

chosen (Charlton, 1980; Colburn, 2000; Vosniadou et al., 2001). Structured discovery laboratory

was reported to be advantageous for embracing students of diverse abilities and cognitive

developmental stages (Ault, 2002; Charlton, 1980). In fact, both students and teachers alike need

time to gradually make a transition from the traditional type activities and lectures to inquiry-

based instruction. The more familiar the activity, materials, and context of the investigation, the

easier it is for students to learn through inquiry (Colburn, 2000). Particularly, when students are

not familiar with chemical experiments in inquiry-based laboratory, the chemistry lab should be

Lee’s conceptual understanding 19structured with clear and safe instructions that increase their chance of success (Monteyne &

Cracolice, 2004). In brief, since the students in this study are lack of experience with inquiry and

deal with chemicals, the guided inquiry-based laboratory is suitable choice for my instructional

mode.

Asking questions in guided-inquiry based laboratory

In a guided inquiry activity, although students make observations and reach

conclusions, it is a teacher who guides students with relevant questions that foster student

thinking (NRC, 2005). Learning objectives are usually presented as open-ended, or divergent,

questions. Activities are centered around questions that students can answer directly via

investigation. To keep students thinking, teachers should not give answers but present

opportunities for students to test their answers (Colburn, 2000). In addition, Ault (2002) argued

that the procedure was a point of departure of investigation and if used thoughtfully, it could

develop skills and provide insight. The word “thoughtfully” implies the teacher should ask such

questions as “Why do we need to do that?” or “What are some different things you could try with

that procedure?” to provoke students’ thought.

In this study, an array of open-ended questions that require higher levels of reasoning

will be employed in students’ handouts in order to guide students’ activities and to collect

qualitative data for the research.

Lee’s conceptual understanding 20Method

Participants

The participants of this action research are 180 students of 11th grade from 6 classes

of a high school in Seoul, Korea. They are both male and female. They are taught Chemistry I

two periods (50 minutes for one period) a week.

Context of study

This is my action research to improve my pedagogical content knowledge, but I am

not able to teach in a classroom for such a long term because Korean government made me study,

not teach, for two years. Therefore, I asked a friend of mine who teaches Chemistry I in a high

school in Seoul, Korea to help me with this research. She has the same educational background

and teaching experience as mine. I will provide her with guided-inquiry based laboratory

activities that I designed with detailed directions. Actually, this is one of reasons why I chose

guided-inquiry based laboratory as a topic. If other teacher gives lecture to the students with my

direction, it is not my action that affects the result of the study because lecturing involves too

many variables to be controlled.

For this study, I just focus on the laboratory activities, not classroom teaching. From

the unit, four student experiments was chosen and will be carried out sequentially in successive

weeks. After each lab activity the students will be given lecture to complement student’ learning

Lee’s conceptual understanding 21from lab activity with more explanations and to cover the other relevant topics. Thus, whole

instruction can be similar to learning cycle (Colburn, 2000). However, during the laboratory

experiments students will be introduced to not only the developing concept but also the terms and

the usefulness and application of the concepts because it is the lab activities where the students

develop understanding of the concepts.

Subject and unit

The curricular purpose of Chemistry I is to promote scientific literacy with a context-

based approach as an introductory chemistry course for Korean high school. Chemistry I is taught

for 11th grade students and consists of five units: Air, Water, Metal, Carbon compounds, and

Compounds in our life. As a result, it is easy to teach based on inquiry. This study focuses on the

unit Metal. The unit Metal includes concepts about metallic bond, periodic table, and oxidation-

reduction of metal. However, these concepts will be taught again in Chemistry II with more focus

on the theoretical structure. In Chemistry I, the unit Metal emphasizes the applications in our life,

and thus properties, the uses, refining, corrosion, protecting methods, recycling, and alloys.

Topics of Student experiments

To develop competence in an area of inquiry, students must understand facts and

ideas in the context of a conceptual framework (NRC, 2005). The main target concept which

other concepts are around is called driving question, and subquestions are questions that are used

Lee’s conceptual understanding 22in each activity as an instructional objective. Driving question is “How would you define metal in

terms of chemistry?” that ask the concept of metal. Subquestions are below

Are sodium, potassium and calcium metals? (The characteristics of metal)

How do metals react with other substances? (The activity series of metals)

How do metals react with other metals? (Plating and alloy)

How can metal be protected from corrosion? (The conditions of corrosion)

The Procedure (Timeline)

Analyzing the unit to extract the learning objectives and design the pretest

during June 2007.

Conducting the pretest to measure students’ level of understanding prior to

instructions, to collect information about student’s prior knowledge, and thus to

design the guided-inquiry laboratory during July, 2007.

Implementing guided four inquiry lab activities and collecting students’

worksheets from the labs from the end of August through September 2007.

Conducting the posttest to measure students’ level of understanding after

finishing the unit at the beginning of October 2007.

Administrating survey to find out the attitude toward guided inquiry-based

instruction at the beginning of October 2007.

Lee’s conceptual understanding 23Implement of experiment activity

To guide students through the activities, I will give them structured procedures and

ask them a series of questions with the handouts that I made. Students make hypotheses about the

driving and subquestions, conduct experimentation, analyze data, and draw conclusions by

discussing with other students in the same group.

During the investigation the teacher’s role is to monitor students’ use of materials

and interactions with others, as well as attend to the conceptual ideas with which students are

working. If the teacher judges that the students’ activity is so off the mark that the targeted

learning goals will be sacrificed, she will provide prompt corrective feedback.

Data Collection

Qualitative methodology is a powerful tool for enhancing our understanding of

teaching and learning, and uses a naturalistic approach that seek to understand phenomena in

content specific settings. One source of information that can be invaluable to qualitative research

is analysis of documents (Hoepfl, 1997). My research will rely heavily on analysis of student

documents, including the pretest and the posttest that are based on the learning objectives on

the unit, the survey of students’ attitude toward guided inquiry laboratory, and the lab

worksheets from four students’ experiments. In those documents, open-ended questions allow

the students unlimited choices, and provide me with a more accurate sense of what they are

Lee’s conceptual understanding 24actually thinking (Johnson, 2007).

However, for the survey, I will take both qualitative and quantitative approach to

collect data. The purpose of the students’ survey is to find out the attitudes toward guided

inquiry-based instruction, and thus determine the effectiveness of my instruction on students’

learning. With such a huge number of data (180 students), quantitative analysis will give this

study reliable information about their attitudes. On the other hand, students are required to write

their opinion how helpful and useful my teaching strategy was. This qualitative data will provide

various and insightful information to decide my future teaching strategy.

Data Analysis

I will take two approaches toward the analysis of the data.

One is focused on the objective nature of the research. After coding the data of each

open-ended question in the documents, I will create a table of code scheme for each question to

organize the categories so that I can find out the overall tendency across the students. The tables

consist of categories, brief description of them, dominant examples, and the frequency (the

number of data in each category) to provide audience with meaningful information about the

students’ prior knowledge concerning metal and their perception about guided inquiry

experiments. This process can be seen as a transformation of qualitative data into quantitative

data. Quantitative analysis facilitates both the researcher and audience in obtaining an overview

Lee’s conceptual understanding 25or flavor of densely packed qualitative data (Gough & Scott, 2000). The tables will show the

distribution among the categories of qualitative data. The lists of prior knowledge may have some

meanings in itself, but when the frequency is provided, the teacher and audience can find out the

dominant obstacles to the promoting conceptual change in teaching practices. Furthermore, with

the comparison between the pretest result and the posttest result, or between hypotheses and

conclusions in the lab papers, I can determine the effectiveness of the lab activities in promoting

conceptual change.

On the other hand, I will generate ‘a loose network’, which is suggested by Gough &

Scott (2000), to represent the flow of thoughts for some group of students. One of my research

purposes is to monitor the students’ conceptual change over time. To achieve this goal, the

requirement is to record and display ideas that will arise in students’ written data, and links

between them. Concept mapping is useful to detect students’ prior knowledge and follow the

conceptual change, but it takes a great deal of time to get used to drawing them. Thus, the loose

network will be concept maps that are drawn by the researcher based on the data, in which coded

data will be signified by a word or words the students actually use. If a student’s own words are

compressed into a category signified by a word supplied by the researcher, care will be taken to:

ensure the appropriateness of the chosen signifier (by, for example, comparing that

student’s words with those used by other students who employ the chosen signifier);

Lee’s conceptual understanding 26 employ as many other categories as seem necessary to convey the full content of that

student’s words;

ensure consistency in the making of such decisions by critical selfexamination

(Gough & Scott, 2000).

Lee’s conceptual understanding 27References

Allen, J. B., Baker, L.N., and Ramsden, J. H., (1986). Guided inquiry laboratory, Journal of

Chemical Education. 63(6), 533-534.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy.

New York. Oxford University Press.

Appleton, K. (1997). Analysis and description of students’ learning during science classes using a

constructivist-based model, Journal of Research in Science Education, 34(3), 303-318.

Ault, A. (2002). What’s wrong with cookbooks?, Journal of Chemical Education, 79(10), 1177.

Charlton, R. E., (1980). Teacher-To-Teacher: Cognitive Style Considerations for the

Improvement of Biology Education, American Biology Teacher, 42(4), 244-247.

Colburn, A. (2000, March). An Inquiry Primer, Science Scope, 42-44.

Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the Essence of Inquiry: New Roles for Science Teachers,

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9) 916-937.

Domin, S. D., (1999). A review of laboratory instruction styles, Journal of chemical education,

76(4), 543-547.

Domin, S. D., (2007). Students’ perceptions of when conceptual development occurs during

laboratory instruction, Chemistry Educational Research and Practice, 8(2), 140-152.

Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E. & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific

knowledge in the classroom, Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.

Lee’s conceptual understanding 28Duit, R. and Treagust, D. (2003). Conceptual change: a powerful framework for improving

science teaching and learning, International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671-688.

Fensham, P, J. (1972). Prior knowledge-a source of negative factors for subsequent learning,

Research in science education, 2(1), 50-57.

Fisher, K, M. (2004). The importance of prior knowledge in college science instruction (chapter

5), Reform in undergraduate science teaching for the 21st century, Information Age

Publishing. Retrieved March 3, 2007, from

http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/CRMSE/ch_05_PriorKnowl_FINAL-SS.rtf

Gough, S. & Scott, W. (2000). Exploring the purpose of qualitative data coding in educational

enquiry: Insights from recent research. Educational Studies, 26(3), 339-354.

Harrison, A, G. & Treagust, D, F., (2001). Conceptual change using multiple interpretive

perspectives: Two case studies in secondary school chemistry, Instructional Science, 29, 45–

85.

Hoepfl, M. (1997). Choosing qualitative research: A primer for technology education researchers,

Journal of Technology Education, 9(1), 47-63.

Hofstein, A., and Lunetta, V. N., (2004). The laboratory in science education: foundations for the

twenty-first century, Science Education, 88, 28-54.

Holzer, S. M. (1994). From constructivism to active learning, The Innovator, 2, Retrieved March

Lee’s conceptual understanding 293, 2007, from: http://www.succeed.ufl.edu/innovators/innovator_2/innovator002.html

Johnson, A, P. (2007). A short guide to action research (3rd edition), Boston, MA: Pearson Allyn

and Bacon.

Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2003). Individual and sociocultural views of learning in science education,

Science & Education, 12, 91-113.

Liew, C., & Treagust, D. F., (1998). The effectiveness of predict-observe-explain tasks in

diagnosing students’ understanding of science and in identifying their levels of achievement,

paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association

(San Diego, CA, April 13-17, 1998), 22.

Monteyne, K. & Cracolice, M. S. (2004). What’s wrong with cookbooks? A reply to Ault,

Journal of Chemical Education, 81(11), 1559-1560.

National Research Council, (1996). National science education standards, Washington, DC: The

National Academy Press.

National Research Council, (2005). How students learn: science in the classroom, Washington,

DC: The National Academies Press.

Perkins, D. (1993). Teaching for understanding, American Educator, 17(3), 28-35.

Roschelle, J. (1995). Learning in interactive environments: prior knowledge and new experience.

Public institutions for personal learning: establishing a research agenda. Falk, J. & Dierking,

L. (eds.). Washington: American Association of Museums. Retrieved March 3, 2007 from

Lee’s conceptual understanding 30http://www.exploratorium.edu/IFI/resources/museumeducation/priorknowledge.html

Singer, J., Marx, R, W., Krajcik, J. & Chambers, C. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry

projects: curriculum materials for science education reform, Educational Psychologist,

35(3), 165-178.

Sunel, D. W., The learning cycle: A comparison of models of strategies for conceptual

reconstruction: A review of the literature, Retrieved April 10, 2007, from

http://astlc.ua.edu/ScienceInElem&MiddleSchool/565LearningCycle-ComparingModels.htm

Taber, K. S. (2001). The mismatch between assumed prior knowledge and the learner’s

conceptions: a typology of learning impediments, Educational Studies, 27(2), 159-171.

Vosniadou, S., Dimitrakopoulou, A., & Papademetriou, E., (2001). Designing learning

environments to promote conceptual change in science, Learning and Instruction, 11(4),

381-419.