keasonksumed.weebly.com€¦ · Web viewScience instructional methods are coming into focus as 21st century learners emerge. Science education is a significant part of a child’s

Running head: THE IMPACT OF INQUIRY-BASED INSTRUCTION IN SCIENCE 1

The Impact of Inquiry-based Instruction in Science

Katy Eason

Kennesaw State University – ECE 7543

THE IMPACT OF INQUIRY-BASED INSTRUCTION IN SCIENCE 2

Abstract

Science instructional methods are coming into focus as 21st century learners emerge.

Science education is a significant part of a child’s education. In order to problem solve, children

engage in process thinking and situation analysis, similar to the scientific method of problem

solving. This study was designed to see the impact of inquiry-based instruction in science. The

study was conducted over a five week period in a fifth-grade inclusion classroom. Both

quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analyzed during this five week unit of

instruction. Quantitative data was collected through pre-tests, post-tests, and mini-quizzes

throughout the unit. Qualitative data was collected in the form of engagement versus non-

engagement and teacher journaling that reflected on observations during lessons. The data

collected, and analysis of that data, reflects that inquiry-based instruction has a positive impact

on student achievement and engagement in science.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract............................................................................................................................................2

Introduction......................................................................................................................................4

Review of Literature........................................................................................................................5

Methodology....................................................................................................................................8

Results............................................................................................................................................10

Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................14

Appendix………………………………………………………………………………………….

References......................................................................................................................................18


Introduction

Science instructional methods are coming into focus as 21st century learners emerge.

Science education is a significant part of a child’s education. In order to problem solve, children

engage in process thinking and situation analysis, similar to the scientific method of problem

solving. Current science instruction typically consists of either direct instruction or inquiry-based

instruction.

Science education comprises a significant part of a child’s formal and informal education.

In order to be problem solvers in everyday life, students deliberately or unintentionally engage in

scientific thinking and analysis of a variety situations. This scientific approach to problem

solving needs to be reinvigorated and developed in an educational setting where teachers

continuously change and organize curriculum and instruction to meet the needs of their children

(Poon, Tan & Tan 2009). The ideal environment for fostering and developing structured

scientific analytical thinking is the school because it is where children spend most of their time

outside of the home. Formal learning takes place within the school environment. There has been

research done by professional educators and theorists who provide evidence in support of both

the inquiry method and direct instruction method of teaching science.

At Sawyer Road Elementary, we are engaging in a yearlong professional development

program for concept-based learning. It has always been a goal of mine to increase the amount of

inquiry, process-based science instruction in my classroom. With little time and few resources,

this has not been fully implemented. I believe that that full implementation of process learning

will have a significant impact on my student’s learning, not only in science, but in all areas.

The question that this study will address is, “How does inquiry-based instruction impact

student achievement and engagement in science?” The research takes place over a five week

physical science unit in a fifth grade classroom. The results will convey how Gifted Students,


Special Education Students, Early Invention Program Students, and General Education students

respond to inquiry-based instruction.

Literature Review

This goal of this literature review is to examine the pros and cons of using an inquiry-

based teaching style and content-based teaching style. Another goal is to identify possible

benefits of instructing students through a combination of both the inquiry and direct methods of

instruction. Here, I situate my AR within the literature on 1) Inquiry-based teaching: the nature,

benefits and challenges; 2) content-based teaching: the nature, benefits and challenges; 3) a

combination of approaches.

Inquiry-based teaching: the nature, benefits and challenges

Benefits of using an inquiry-based teaching approach are recognized by many

researchers. Many researchers also recognize curriculum and instructions should include more

hands-on activities to promote inquiry-based teaching (Poon, Tan & Tan, 2009). Students learn

best when they take an active role and practice what they have learned (Smart & Csapo, 2007).

Researchers indicate that a shift from traditional “book and paper” style that has taken place for

several decades is imperative to improve a child’s learning. Teachers need to sert up a classroom

that is naturally conducive to such a style. Classrooms should be arranged in a fashion where

students can move about the room in order to participate in hands-on, collaborative learning

experiences. Organization, structure, and routines help facilitate this type of instruction. Al-

Sabbagh believes that teachers must have full support from their school and district in order to

have a successful environment for inquiry-based learning. (Al-Sabbagh, 2009).

There is newer research that suggests that colleges and universities are not doing their

due diligence in preparing teachers for inquiry-based teaching. It is suggested that the pre-service

teachers, however, who are taught to use inquiry-based methods are more likely to develop

hands-on activities for their science classroom (Hohloch, Grove & Bretz, 2007). Teachers who


learn an inquiry-based teaching approach are often more comfortable integrating science into

other areas and making connections to real life.

Canan Koçan implies that the future of educational instruction is shifting towards

process-based teaching. Koçak (2013) states that “it is very important to question the scientific

process skills due to logical and intuitive thinking characteristics.” The article indicates that

process-based teaching applications have a direct impact on student achievement.

The article, “Development and Evaluation of a Competence-Based Teaching Process for

Science and Technology Education” discusses that quality education is increasing being

measured by the level of competence processing instead of the content knowledge gained. This

indicates that process skills could be more valuable than the mastery of specific content. The

article also mentions “that suitable instruments and methods of measurement are needed for this

kind of quality evaluation, which, however, are not yet available.” If such measurements were in

place, teachers would be evaluated on how well students were able to problem solve.

E. Chiapetta and A. Collette ‘s article, “Process Versus Content in Elementary Science

Teaching” indicate that there are multiple reasons that support that process or concept driven

instruction is superior to content based instruction. Since the 1950’s educators have started

emphasizing the scientific method and the importance of developing children who have a

scientific attitude rather than just simply following steps. Developmental psychologists agree that

the cognition of children is enriched by process driven science education. The article also

suggests that teachers need more training in process oriented instruction. The article implies that

teachers who understand the process of science can better serve students than teachers who do

not.

Theorists such as Jean Piaget and John Dewey believed that an inquiry-based teaching

approach would help to expand a child’s natural curiosity and encourage critical thinking. Piaget

even suggested that this teaching approach would best support gifted learners. Both theorists


believed that natural curiosity and inquisitiveness would lead to successful scientists in everyday

life. Dewey suggested that this was especially important when introducing new topics (Dewey,

2008).

M. Kazempour and A. Amirshokoohi discuss how professional development impacts the

implementation of process-based instruction. In the article, “Transitioning to Inquiry-based

teaching: Exploring Science Teachers’ Professional Development Experiences” the research

implies that teachers understood the need to alter their classroom science instruction to a more

process driven style. Teachers who participated in this study proposed to allow for students to

make mistakes, arrive at solutions, and work as teams during their science instruction. There

was a consensus that students need to develop critical thinking, problem solving, and analytical

skills. They planned to “encourage students to pose questions and focus on understanding

scientific practices as opposed to memorizing isolated facts and terminology.” Despite awareness

of the impact inquiry-based instruction can have on students, many teachers reverted back to

their comfort zone and resumed teaching to content. One off the key reasons for this was the

external factors that teachers face like pressure to cover content, lack of administrative support,

and lack of time.

Another article about process based instruction versus content based instruction describes

a correlation between instructional methods and student motivation (Wang 2014). Based on this

study, inquiry-based instruction proved to have a positive impact on student learning and

motivation. When comparing the pre and post assessment data, significant changes resulted in all

of the studies areas with the exception of school “c” where there were several environmental

influences that impacted the implementation of inquiry-based instruction.

Content-based teaching: the nature, benefits and challenges

Content-based teaching has several benefits on its own. Many teachers prefer to use a

direct instruction method because of its structure. Teachers are comfortable controlling the


climate and flow of their own classrooms. Several researchers support direct instruction because

it allows for children to have planned experiences in science rather than incidental experiences as

with inquiry method (Mason, 1963). Some teachers would prefer the use of direct instruction

because this is the because of its organizational structure (.Qablan, et al, 2009). Teachers often

struggle with keeping student motivated while learning through inquiry-based learning (Bencze,

2009). When a teacher controls the lesson, the learning goal is inevitable presented to the class.

The students have a clear learning objective and a direct path for meeting their learning goal.

Teachers can easily gage whether or not students grasp the specific learning goals and pace their

instruction accordingly.

Summary of Findings

When inquiry-based, content-based, and direct instruction takes place, critical thinking

can occur. Some researchers believe that using these instructional methods in combination can

be useful in enhancing academic achievement in children (Soltis, 1988). Other researchers

believe that an inquiry-based approach supersedes other approaches when it comes to science

instruction.

Methodology

Participants:

The participants in this action research will consist of 20 students from a 5th grade

classroom. The student population will be comprised of eleven girls and nine boys, creating the

combined total of 20 students. Students’ ages range from ten years to eleven years. The whole

class breakdown is as follows:

Girls Boys EIP SPED Gifted General Ed.

11 9 8 6 3 3


Students in the class achieve at various levels. Students that are served for Early

Intervention (EIP) qualified in both reading and math as according to their Measure of Academic

Progress (MAP) Assessment results. These students receive their intervention through the

general education setting. The Gifted Learners are served daily during the Language Arts

segment and are pulled twice a week during their science segment. The students who receive

Special Education Services Are supported with a Department of Special Services

Paraprofessional who pushes in for one forty-five minute segment daily. The disabilities of these

students range from Emotional Behavior Disorder (EBD), Other Health Impairment (OHI) with

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and Learning Disabilities (LD).

Experimental Design:

Research will be conducted using individual and collaborative action research. Each

student will be given the same pre-test. Inquiry-based instruction will be provided to each

student. They will be given opportunities to drive their own instruction working individually and

in collaborative groups. Non-engagement scans will be collected each day. A journal will be

completed at the end of each week. Notes from the journal will be complied to create a visual

using frequent words from the journal.

Procedure:

A four week unit based on the Georgia Standards for Excellence on the topic of Physical

Science was taught four to five times per week for forty-five minute segments.

The research began in February 2016. A pre-test was given that addresses each of the

standards for this unit. The pre-test consisted of questions based on the Georgia Standards for

Excellence in 5th Grade Science. Data was collected for quantitative data using pre and post

assessments as well as mini quizzes throughout the unit. The pre and post assessments were

identical so that the scores could be directly compared to show growth. . For this research, I


looked first, at the overall percentages for the pre and post assessments and compared them. I

then looked into specific standards and determine where the most growth was made.

Qualitative data was collected through checklists and journaling. A teacher journal was

completed at the completion of each topic throughout the unit. I reflected on the experiences

facilitated and how they went. Checklists were used to assess student engagement. Students

were observed for 2 minutes at a time to see if they’re on-task and actively participating. The

students reflected in their journals as well.

Results

I taught a 4 week physical science unit. This particular unit included a study of matter,

physical and chemical properties, physical and chemical changes, and a comparison between

physical and changes. A pre-assessment was given for the entire unit. Progress was monitored

though questioning, checklists, journaling, and mini-assessments for each topic taught. The pre-

assessment was comprehensive for the unit, whereas the quizzes at the end of each week were

not.

Quantitative Data

I collected quantitative data in the forms of pre and post-assessments for the entire unit.

In addition to this, I collected data from quizzes that were given at the end of each topic. The

data table below shows the student along with any identifier if needed.

Student Identification

Unit Pre-Test

Unit Post-Test

Week 1 Quiz Scores

Week 2 Quiz Scores

Week 3 Quiz Scores

Week 4 Quiz Scores

Scores are out of 1001 G 80 95 100 80 90 1002 SPED 25 65 20 50 60 603 G 81 95 70 90 90 1004 SPED 45 10 30 60 20 05 EIP 55 70 60 50 60 806 SPED 30 50 60 50 50 607 SPED 45 60 60 60 60 708 EIP 60 80 20 80 80 80


9 EIP 40 70 20 70 80 8010 EIP 75 85 40 90 80 9011 SPED 40 45 60 80 70 5012 EIP 80 90 50 90 90 8013 SPED 35 60 30 60 50 4014 70 90 30 100 90 10015 G 80 100 50 100 100 10016 80 80 40 90 80 9017 75 80 30 80 80 9018 EIP 70 85 50 90 80 9019 EIP 75 85 50 70 70 8020 EIP 55 75 40 80 90 100

G— Gifted SPED—Special Education EIP—Early Intervention Program

This chart shows that pre and post assessment data.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 200

20

40

60

80

100

120

Physical Science Pre and Post Assessment Scores

Pre-Test Post-Test

Students

Scor

es o

ut o

f 100

%

This chart shows that 19/20 students showed growth from their pre-test to the post-test.

Student 4 showed a significant drop in his scores. Student 4 is a special education student who

struggles with behavior. His lack of progress is typical in every subject. Since this research was

completed, student 4 has been moved to a new school in a self-contained classroom that is more

suited to support his needs. Though some scores still remain low, there was an overall increase in

achievement.

Qualitative Data


I worked alongside my co-teacher to administer non-engagement scans throughout different

times of each science segment. The results for each student were as follows.

Non-Engagement Scan

2/8 2/9 2/10

2/11

2/12

2/23

2/24

2/25

2/26 3/2 3/3 3/4 3/8 3/9 3/1

03/11

3/14

1 E NE E E E E E E E NE E E E E E NE E

2 NE NE E NE NE E E NE E E E N

ENE NE E AB E

3 NE E AB E E NE E E E N

E E E E E E E NE

4 NE

AB NE NE NE NE NE NE NE N

E NE NE

NE NE NE NE NE

5 E E NE E E NE NE E NE E E NE E E NE E E

6 NE NE E E E NE NE NE E E NE N

ENE NE E NE NE

7 E E E E E E E E NE E E E NE E E E E

8 E E NE E E E AB AB E E NE E E E E NE E

9 NE NE NE E E NE AB E E N

EAB

NE

NE

AB NE NE E

10 E E E E NE E E E E E NE E E E E E E

11

NE NE E E E NE NE E NE E E N

E E E E NE NE

12 E NE E NE E E NE E NE E E N

E E NE E NE E

13

NE E E NE E E NE NE E E NE E E E NE E NE

14 E E E E NE E E E E E E E N

E E E E E

15 E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

16 E E NE E E E E AB E E NE E E E NE NE E

17

NE NE E NE E E NE E E N

E E E E E NE E NE

18

NE E E NE E NE AB AB NE N

E E E NE E AB E NE

19

NE NE NE E E NE E E E N

E E E E NE E E E

20

NE NE E NE E NE E E NE E E N

E E E NE E NE

E—Engaged Students NE—Non Engaged Students AB—Absent SPED/EIP Students


8-Feb 9-Feb 10-Feb

11-Feb

12-Feb

23-Feb

24-Feb

25-Feb

26-Feb

2-Mar

3-Mar

4-Mar

8-Mar

9-Mar

10-Mar

11-Mar

14-Mar

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Non-Engagement Scans

Engaged Non-Engaged

Date of Observation

Num

ber o

f Stu

dent

s

8-Feb

9-Feb

10-Feb

11-Feb

12-Feb

23-Feb

24-Feb

25-Feb

26-Feb

2-Mar

3-Mar

4-Mar

8-Mar

9-Mar

10-Mar

11-Mar

14-Mar

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Non-Engagement ScansSPED/EIP Students vs. Non-SPED/EIP Students

SPED/EIP NE Non-SPED/EIP NE

Date of Observation

Num

ber o

f Stu

dent

s

The non-engagement scans show that students were engaged more than they were not

engaged. It shows that SPED students were especially engaged. In addition to the non-

engagement scans, I wrote in a journal each week to keep track of what I observed. The word


cloud below was generated using the top 100 words from the journal. You can easily see that

students are at the forefront followed by groups and support.

Conclusion

Based on the data collected throughout the research, inquiry-based instruction proved to

be more engaging for all students, especially Special Education Students, and led to an increase

in student achievement. Students were most engaged during hands on experiments.

Some students were absent and missed parts of the experiments which caused them to be

behind. Due to time constraints, students who were absent were unable to participate in certain

experiments as they could not be made-up. Another limitation was the amount of available

resources. Due to funding, our science supplies are limited. It was requested that students help

bring in certain materials; few supplies were actually brought in. This made the size of groups

larger than what was ideal.


With an increased focus is on inquiry-based instruction, inquiry in science is an excellent

starting point. If classroom throughout the country were able to implement inquiry-based

instruction in all subjects, it could potentially lead to increase in achievement and growth across

all area. More research could need to be conducted to determine the accuracy of this statement.

This research shows that inquiry-based instruction is beneficial to student growth, achievement,

and engagement for all learners.


Appendix A



References

Al-Sabbagh, S. (2009). Instruments and implements of enquiry based learning. Online Submission, Retrieved from ERIC database.http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED507027&site=ehost-live

Bangert-Drowns, R., & Bankert, E. (1990). Meta-analysis of effects of explicit instruction for critical thinking. Retrieved from ERIC. Accession Number: ED328614. http://www.eric.ed.gov.ez-proxy.brooklyn.cuny.edu:2048/PDFS/ED328614.pdf

Bencze, J. (2009). ‘‘Polite directiveness’’ in science inquiry: A contradiction in terms? Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4, 855-864. DOI 10.1007/s11422-009-9194-5

Chiapetta, E. L. & Collette, A. T. (1973). Process Versus Content in Elementary Science Teaching. Retrieved June 15, 2015 fromhttp://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=6&hid=113&sid=d94660d3-c320-48ca-8b628ca6697c1c37%40sessionmgr112&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=eric&AN=ED099196

Dewey, J. (2008). Democracy and education. Virginia: Wilder Publications.

Eshach, H. (1997). Inquiry-events as a tool for changing science teaching efficacy belief of kindergarten and elementary school teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12, 495-501. Retrieved from JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40188754

Glassman, M. (2001). Dewey and Vygotsky: Society, experience, and inquiry in educational practice. Educational Researcher, 30 (4), 3-14. Retrieved from JSTOR.

Henderson, T., & David, A. (2007). Integration of play, learning, and experience: What museums afford young visitors. Early Childhood Education journal, 35 (3), 245-251. DOI 10.1007/s10643-007-0208-1

Hohloch, J. M., Grove, N., & Bretz, S. L. (2007). Pre-service teacher as researcher: The value of inquiry in learning science. Journal of Chemical Education, 84 (9), 1530-1534. (EJ820789). Retrieved fromhttp://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu.ez-proxy.brooklyn.cuny.edu:2048/Journal/Issues/2007/Sep/abs1530.html

Kazempour M., & Amirshokoohi, A., (2014). Transitioning to Inquiry-based Teaching: Exploring science teachers’ professional development experiences. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 9(3), 285-309.Retrieved June 27, 2015 from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.proxy.kennesaw.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=b65ce9aa-99f7-403c-b091-0c1ad57896e2%40sessionmgr198&vid=22&hid=108


Pešaković, D., Flogie, A., Aberšek, B., (2014). Development and evaluation of a competence-based teaching process for science and technology education. Journal of Baltic Science Education., 13 (5), 740-755

Wang, J., & Wen, S. (2010). Examining reflective thinking: a study of changes in methods students’ conceptions and understandings of inquiry teaching. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 1-21. Retrieved from EBSCO. http://ejournals.ebsco.com/direct.asp?ArticleID=4F6CBAE4E3BBD1F0DC2A

Wang, P. Wu, P. Yu, Ker & Lin, Y. (2014). Influence of Implementing Inquiry Based Instruction on Science Learning Motivation and Interest. Retrieved June 21, 2015 fromhttp://eds.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.kennesaw.edu/eds/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=5593cdf1-e9bd-4d3c-9b93 c7561e8906f2%40sessionmgr4002&hid=4103&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#db=edselp&AN=S1877042815008022

Wrenn, J., & Wrenn, B. (2009). Enhancing learning by integrating theory and practice. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21 (2), 258-265. Retrieved from ERIC.

Documents

keasonksumed.weebly.com€¦ · Web viewScience instructional methods are coming into focus as 21st century learners emerge. Science education is a significant part of a child’s