Teachers’ designs of web-based inquiry learning environments as a probe forinquiry teaching and learning frameworks

Alexia Sevastidou, Constantinos P. ConstantinouLearning in Science Group, University of Cyprus

Research is supported by Cyprus Research Promotion Foundation

CBLIS 2010Warsaw

Research overview• Research goals

• How teachers elaborate inquiry as a teaching and learning framework through their efforts to design web-based inquiry learning environments

• How these teachers subsequently transfer their theoretically informed designs of inquiry-based teaching into classroom practice

• Pilot study to explore the affordances and constraints of • a) a design-based learning approach to teachers’

preparation for inquiry based learning and teaching• b) web-based tools that were developed to provide

teachers’ scaffolding for the task of designing

The problem

• Science curricula policy documents internationally emphasize inquiry as the primary context for learning science (Bybee, 2005)

• Many teachers appear to have difficulty creating classroom environments that are inquiry-based, and to support their students in developing informed views of scientific inquiry and the nature of science (Chiapetta & Adams, 2000; Lederman, 1992; Marx et al., 1994; Minstrell & van Zee, 2000)

What is inquiry-based science teaching?

• A multifaceted approach to teaching that can be used to accomplish many differing purposes (Deboer, 2004)

• Difficult to be framed in specific learning and teaching sequences

• Students in K-12 science classrooms should (NRC, 1996)– develop abilities to do scientific inquiry: identifying and posing

questions, designing and conducting investigations, analyzing data and evidence, using models and explanations, and communicating findings

– gain understandings about scientific inquiry: how scientists conduct their work, how concepts related to the nature of science

• Teachers should facilitate students in acquiring deep understanding of science concepts, carrying out inquiry

What impacts teachers’ ability to teach science as inquiry?

• The complex interactions of various factors– Contextual: such as school context, subject matter, assessment

standards– Personal: beliefs and knowledge (Wallace & Kang, 2004)

• Research documents that science teachers’ knowledge and beliefs have a profound effect on all aspects of their teaching (Magnusson et al., 2002)

• Knowledge of science concepts, pedagogical content knowledge, children’s developmental level and abilities

• Beliefs about learners and student learning, the nature of science, the role of the teacher

Our approach to inquiry based learning and teaching

• We interpret inquiry as a teaching and learning framework that seeks to promote collaborative development of conceptual models with interpretive capacity through classroom practices and discourse that highlights some aspects of authentic science.

• Inquiry should rely on self-regulated learning sequences with an emphasis on active engagement, discursive argumentation and emergent student autonomy.

Our approach to teacher learning

1. Learning settings should enable teachers to reflect upon their beliefs and understandings about learning, teaching, students, and the subject matter (Davis, 2003),

2. Learning experiences should be situated in meaningful contexts for teachers (Magnusson et. al, 2002)

3. Teacher learning should be framed in constructivist learning theory (Borko & Putnam, l996)

4. Teacher-learning communities should be transformed into knowledge-building communities (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006)

Characteristics of design as an approach to teacher learning

•Can provide teachers a context to reflect upon their beliefs and understandings about learning and teaching

Ill- structured problem solving

(Simon, 1973)

Ill- structured problem solving

(Simon, 1973)

•Can frame teachers’ learning in constructivist learning theory

Process of reflective judgment (Kitchner,

1981)

Process of reflective judgment (Kitchner,

1981)

Constructionist task, building a public

artifact(Papert, 1991)

Constructionist task, building a public

artifact(Papert, 1991) •As a complex activity it promotes

and is favored by collaboration

Methodology

• Pilot study, fall semester 2009– Semester long graduate course at the University of

Cyprus about the role of new technologies in science learning and teaching

– 13 X 3hour meetings– Participants: 10 graduate education students– Diverse population, first degree in physics (n=3),

elementary education (n=7), pre-service (n=8), in-service (n=2)

– Participants were grouped in five pairs

Our approach: Teachers novice designers of web-based inquiry learning environments

•Design task: develop a web-based inquiry learning environment on a scientific topic of their interest

•Design tool: STOCHASMOS a web-based, open-ended authoring tool, employs inquiry scaffolding features

•Relevant scaffolding: Interact with the course website,

•respond to prompts, •receive peer feedback,•reflect on issues and design decisions

Proposed Design SequenceProposed Design Sequence

Access to relevant theoretical information

Access to relevant theoretical information

Describe your design decisionsDescribe your design decisions

Reflect on your design decisionsReflect on your design decisions

Prompts for reflectionPrompts for reflection

Driving question

Give and accept peer feedbackGive and accept peer feedback

Sharing ideas, reflections, design decisions on the Reflection WallSharing ideas, reflections, design decisions on the Reflection Wall

Data sources

• Questionnaires administered during the first and the last course meeting

• Responses to questions and reflection prompts submitted through the course web-space

• Learning artifacts (web-based learning environments)

• Interaction logs with the course web-space• Interviews with participants at the end of the course

Research Questions

1. In what ways do teachers approach inquiry-based learning and teaching through the task of designing web-based inquiry learning environments?

2. How does the context of designing a web-based inquiry learning environment challenge teachers’ inquiry learning and teaching frameworks

Data analysis: Overview of learning environments developed

Data analysis: web-based inquiry learning environments developed by teachers

• Methods – Content analysis using three schemes

• 1) Five essential features of classroom inquiry (NRC, 2000)• 2) Scaffolding design framework (Quintana et al., 2004) • 3) Emergent analysis scheme

– Constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967)– Cross-case comparison to determine commonalities

and differences among the five cases of environments

Content analysis scheme 1: Openness of inquiry

• Five essential features of classroom inquiry (NRC, 2000) – 1. Learner engages in scientifically oriented questions – 2. Learner prioritizes evidence in responding to questions – 3. Learner formulates explanations from evidence – 4. Learner connects explanations to scientific knowledge – 5. Learner communicates and justifies explanations

• Environments’ level of openness (level 1, 2, or 3)

Structured Guided Student-Initiated

Inquiry might beLOW HIGH

1 2 3

Findings: All environments received an average a

1.6 – 1.8 rating

Content analysis scheme 2: Types of scaffolding prompts

• Types of scaffolding prompts used in environmentsScaffolding design framework (Quintana et al., 2004)

– Sense Making: constructing meaning and elaborating on new knowledge– Process Management: taking strategic decisions involved in controlling the inquiry process– Articulation and Reflection: constructing, evaluating and articulating what has been learned

• Findings:

Sense Making

Articulation and Reflection

Process Management

Content analysis scheme 3: Inquiry patterns

General pattern traced

Activity types

• Inquiry patterns: the way inquiry activities were sequenced• Categories of activities according to their role in the inquiry

sequence.

Content analysis scheme 3: Inquiry patterns

• Inquiry patterns: the way inquiry activities were sequenced• Activity types according to their role in the inquiry sequence.

Patterns that were sequential

Data analysis activities missing or limited

Content analysis scheme 3: Inquiry patterns

Extended and elaborate patternsEmphasis into theoretical sense making and then progressed into data analysis

Content analysis scheme 3: Inquiry patterns

Elaborate data analysis activity sequences, repeated and blended with elaboration and articulation activities

Content analysis scheme 3: Inquiry patterns

• Inquiry patterns: the way inquiry activities were sequenced in environments

• Constant comparative method– Recurrence of data selection and analysis activities– Blending of reflection and articulation activities with

data selection and analysis– Required reasoning addressed by planned tasks

Coherence of inquiry pattern

Inquiry patterns: attribute analysisRecurrence of data selection and analysis activities

Blending of reflection and articulation activities with data selection

Addressing required reasoning skills through environment tasks

Pair1 0 Absent 0 Absent 0 AbsentPair2 1 Present 1 Present 0 AbsentPair3 1 Present 1 Present 1 PresentPair4 0 Absent 0 Absent 0 AbsentPair5 1 Present 1 Present 1 Present

LOW HIGH0 21 3

Environment 3

Environment 5Envir

onment 2

Coherence of inquiry patterns continuum

Environment 1

Environment 4

Data analysis: design decisions, reflection on design decisions

• Data analysed qualitatively• Self –reported challenges:

– Specifying an inquiry topic– Specifying and sequencing inquiry tasks– Goal setting– Ways of achieving concept elaboration and understanding– The role of experimentation – The open-ended nature of the approach

• Challenges with inquiry based teaching were problematized and illustrated in environments

Problematizing the issue of sequencing and specifying inquiry tasks

• “A problem we have to deal with is that the students’ final learning products have to come out from the elaboration of various datasets” (Pair5, reflection notes)

• “Developing a sequence of activities is not as hard as finding a way to present the activities so that they will serve your goals. We had to deal with the problem of how to present students the data at each stage”. (Pair5, reflection notes)

• A carefully planned sequence data selection and analysis activities, dealing with a single dataset at a time

Problematizing the issue of choosing an appropriate driving question

• “We are very much concerned with our scenario and I believe it is too directing and shows what the problem is… so we should not ask students to inquire into this problem” (Pair 1, reflection notes)

• “I am concerned though whether we should let the students find out themselves about the problem of water shortage or whether we should state this in our scenario” (Pair1, reflection notes)

• The uncertainty of participants about the issue they wanted to present to students resulted into an incoherent inquiry problem and into an environment with a series of activities that seemed disconnected.

Discussion - Conclusions

• Teachers’ designs shared common characteristics– Participants designed guided inquiry environments where

learners were independent in carrying out the various tasks, but questions pursued, sequence of activities were provided

– The scaffolding on all the environments followed the same trend

• Management prompts were overemphasized revealing a need for teachers to control the flow of activities

• Commonalities in designs can be attributed to– Functionality provided by the authoring platform e.g. the

absence of dedicated sense making tools– Scaffolding provided through the course

Discussion - Conclusions

• Teachers’ designs varied in the way inquiry sequences and tasks were developed on implicit inquiry patterns– Patterns on which activities were sequenced could

• respond to the nature of scientific inquiry• respond to constructivist pedagogy• serve administrative purposes

• Variations in inquiry patterns can be attributed to participants’ knowledge and beliefs about learning and teaching, learners, nature of scientific inquiry

• Future step to explore how and if knowledge and beliefs progress or change through the process of design

Conclusions

• Self-reported challenges faced by participants were in some cases successfully overcome, while in other cases were not

• In both cases challenges were illustrated in successful or unsuccessful design decisions

• The process of design provided a means for teachers’ challenges to be illustrated in design decisions and allowed them to react on these challenges on a metacognitive level

Thank you!

alexiasevastidou@gmail.com

Example of a process management prompt

StudyOn this page you can find information about sound and its properties. Study this information carefully. ObserveWatch a video about sound. Write down your observations in the template named “Observations”.

Example of a sense making prompt

Complete the concept map with information concerning bacteria

Example of an articulation and reflection prompt

Prepare a report to show to your colleagues how your research has progressed.