See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51201079
Undergraduate student attitudes and perceptions toward low- and high-level
inquiry exercise physiology teaching laboratory experiences
Article in AJP Advances in Physiology Education · June 2011
DOI: 10.1152/advan.00086.2010 · Source: PubMed
CITATIONS
READS
23
770
1 author:
Kim Henige
California State University, Northridge
6 PUBLICATIONS 57 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Kim Henige on 24 June 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Undergraduate student attitudes and perceptions
toward low- and high-level inquiry exercise physiology
teaching laboratory experiences
Kim Henige
Advan in Physiol Edu 35:197-205, 2011. doi:10.1152/advan.00086.2010
You might find this additional info useful...
This article cites 27 articles, 6 of which can be accessed free at:
http://advan.physiology.org/content/35/2/197.full.html#ref-list-1
Updated information and services including high resolution figures, can be found at:
http://advan.physiology.org/content/35/2/197.full.html
Additional material and information about Advances in Physiology Education can be found at:
http://www.the-aps.org/publications/advan
Advances in Physiology Education is dedicated to the improvement of teaching and learning physiology, both in specialized
courses and in the broader context of general biology education. It is published four times a year in March, June, September and
December by the American Physiological Society, 9650 Rockville Pike, Bethesda MD 20814-3991. Copyright © 2011 by the
American Physiological Society. ISSN: 1043-4046, ESSN: 1522-1229. Visit our website at http://www.the-aps.org/.
Downloaded from advan.physiology.org on June 22, 2011
This infomation is current as of June 22, 2011.
Adv Physiol Educ 35: 197–205, 2011;
doi:10.1152/advan.00086.2010.
Teaching In The Laboratory
Undergraduate student attitudes and perceptions toward low- and high-level
inquiry exercise physiology teaching laboratory experiences
Kim Henige
Department of Kinesiology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California
Submitted 23 July 2010; accepted in final form 4 February 2011
motivation; project laboratory; investigative laboratory
AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT of science teaching and learning takes
place in the science teaching laboratory. Traditional science
laboratory assignments are “cookbook” investigations where
teachers or laboratory manuals carefully guide students
through the experiments (like following the steps of a recipe)
to verify something that the students already know. There is
very little incentive or opportunity to think or be creative,
minimizing anticipation and the stimulation of curiosity. Laboratory instruction in this traditional form is often viewed as
uninteresting, boring, and tedious (17, 18, 32, 35). Humans
have a natural inquisitive desire (1). A switch to learnercentered, inquiry-style laboratories, where students are in the
active pursuit of answers to questions or solutions to problems,
takes advantage of this natural desire and uses curiosity to
drive the curriculum.
Student attitudes toward the learning experience encompass
many elements, including enjoyment, motivation, and perception of learning. When educators consider their objectives in
Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: K. Henige, Dept. of
Kinesiology, California State Univ.-Northridge, 18111 Nordhoff St.,
Northridge, CA 91330-8287 (e-mail: kim.henige@csun.edu).
the process of designing a course, the focus is usually on the
attainment of cognitive and practical skills. Improving the
affective domain is often overlooked. In 1968, Mager (20)
stated the following:
“The likelihood of the student putting his knowledge to use
is influenced by his attitude for or against the subject; things
disliked have a way of being forgottenѧOne objective toward
which to strive is that of having the student leave your
influence with as favorable an attitude toward your subject as
possible. In this way you will help to maximize the possibility
that he will remember what he has been taught, and will
willingly learn more about what he has been taught.”
An improved attitude toward the learning experience may
lead to higher achievement, since more positive attitudes toward the science learning experience have been associated with
better achievement in science (18, 19).
Traditional classroom environments are teacher centered,
where the teacher provides instructions and makes decisions.
Students are allowed little to no input in the learning process.
Inquiry learning is based on the constructivist perspective.
There is no single constructivist theory; however, many of the
theories recommend common classroom characteristics (34).
The learning environment should be learner centered, where
students are responsible for their own learning and have an
active role in building their own knowledge and understanding.
The learning context should be complex and challenging,
requiring higher-level thinking skills such as application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (3). The learning tasks should
have a connection to authentic problems. There should be
social negotiation and shared responsibility among students.
Inquiry learning can be applied at different levels. In 1962,
Schwab proposed a three-level taxonomy of openness and
permissiveness for inquiry instruction (27). Schwab’s three levels
were later revised into four levels by Herron (13). The SchwabHerron system provides three areas that can be modified to vary
the level of inquiry presented to students (Table 1). Level 0
essentially represents a lack of inquiry. As the level increases,
students become more involved in the learning process. Level
3 represents full inquiry, where students take full responsibility
for an investigation, from posing a question to answering it. In
the literature, there are many investigations into the effect of
increasing the level of inquiry on student attitudes toward
science. However, the existing studies have used a variety of
inquiry levels and research protocols, making comparisons and
conclusions difficult. In most studies, the level of inquiry was
either not defined or was defined loosely.
The investigative approach to teaching in the laboratory uses
Schwab-Herron level 3 inquiry. These project laboratories
generally last several weeks, and the students are responsible
for all aspects of the investigation. This approach closely
resembles what real scientists do.
1043-4046/11 Copyright © 2011 The American Physiological Society
197
Downloaded from advan.physiology.org on June 22, 2011
Henige K. Undergraduate student attitudes and perceptions
toward low- and high-level inquiry exercise physiology teaching
laboratory experiences. Adv Physiol Educ 35: 197–205, 2011;
doi:10.1152/advan.00086.2010.—The purpose of this investigation
was to compare student attitudes toward two different science
laboratory learning experiences, specifically, traditional, cookbook-style, low-inquiry level (LL) activities and a high-inquiry
level (HL) investigative project. In addition, we sought to measure
and compare students’ science-related attitudes and attitudes toward science. Students participated in 5 wk of LL activities
followed by a 5-wk HL project. An open-ended survey administered at the end of the semester and analyzed by a ␹2-test revealed
that 1) students enjoyed the HL project more than the LL activities,
2) high-level inquiry did not have a negative effect on student
motivation in the laboratory, and 3) students perceived that they
learned more about physiology principles with the LL activities.
Most students liked the HL project, particularly the independence,
responsibility, freedom, and personal relevance. Of the students
who did not like the HL project, many reported being uncomfortable with the lack of structure and guidance. Many students gained
a more positive and realistic view about scientific research, often
reporting an increased respect for science. Likert scale surveys
administered before and after each 5-wk period showed no significant changes in student attitudes to scientific inquiry, adoption of
scientific attitudes, enjoyment of science lessons, or motivation
toward science when the three time points were compared. The
findings in this study have helped to provide suggestions for better
implementation of HL projects in the future.
Teaching In The Laboratory
198
STUDENT ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS TOWARD LOW- AND HIGH-LEVEL INQUIRY
Table 1. Schwab-Herron levels of laboratory openness
Level
Problem
Ways and Means
Answers
0
1
2
3
Given
Given
Given
Open
Given
Given
Open
Open
Given
Open
Open
Open
[From Ref. 21.]
METHODS
Population and Sample
Thirty-nine of forty undergraduate Kinesiology majors enrolled in
a fourth-year advanced exercise physiology course participated in the
Research Procedure
The 10-wk research protocol is shown in Table 2. Students worked
in the same self-selected group of three to five students during the
entire semester. Students were required to purchase a student laboratory manual that was written by the investigator.
Inquiry Treatments
LL. The treatment conditions (Table 3) were based on the classic
Schwab-Herron levels of the laboratory openness scale (Table 1). For
the first 5-wk period, students participated in three level 0 –1 inquiry
laboratory activities (Table 2). For each laboratory activity, the student laboratory manual contained a detailed introduction, background
information, step-by-step instructions, and a written assignment (laboratory report). Students were not explicitly told what to expect for the
results; however, the laboratory manual contained sufficient information so that the students who read and comprehended it would know
what to expect. In addition, students were given guidance by their
teaching assistant (TA) to assist them in the completion of their
laboratory reports. Each laboratory began with a quiz based on a
reading assignment in the laboratory manual. After the quiz, the TA
gave a short lecture to provide background information and instructions for completion of the laboratory activity and report.
HL. During the second 5-wk period, the laboratory assignment was
a level 3 investigative project. Student groups were required to
develop a research question. Other than safety, the only constraint for
Table 2. Semester outline/research protocol
Activity
Assessment
Survey
LL activities
Week 1
Week
Week
Week
Week
2
3
4
5
Students are taught how to calibrate and use the various pieces
of equipment that will be used over the next 4 wk
Laboratory 1: aerobic capacity
Laboratory 2: lactate threshold
Laboratory 3: glucose homeostasis during exercise
Laboratory 3: continued
Week
Week
Week
Week
Week
6
7
8
9
10
Investigative
Investigative
Investigative
Investigative
Investigative
First LSS
Quiz on laboratory 1
Quiz on laboratory 2; laboratory 1 due
Quiz on laboratory 3; laboratory 2 due
Project proposal due
HL Investigative Project
laboratory
laboratory
laboratory
laboratory
laboratory
project
project
project
project
project presentation
Laboratory 3 due
Second LSS
Project report due
Third LSS; OES
LL, low inquiry level; HL, high inquiry level; LSS, Likert-scale survey; OES, open-ended survey.
Advances in Physiology Education • VOL
35 • JUNE 2011
Downloaded from advan.physiology.org on June 22, 2011
Before students can effectively participate in a full level 3
inquiry, it is generally recommended that they should first
spend time learning basic laboratory techniques and procedures. In addition, students should learn at least the basic
principles of the scientific process and research design. Students should also perform guided (midlevel) inquiry investigations before participating in full inquiry.
In an investigative project, small groups of students (preferably 2–5 students/group) ask a question or identify a problem
that is authentic and personally relevant and interesting. The
groups then gather information about the topic, write a hypothesis, design an experiment, write a research proposal, and
spend several weeks collecting and analyzing data. The final
product is typically a written report formatted like a journal
article. In addition, the students may present their data and an
interpretation of their results to the class. Evaluation of the
investigative laboratory approach has been primarily based
on qualitative data from case studies. The feedback from
students and teachers has been generally positive (2, 6, 8,
16, 22, 29, 32).
The purpose of this project was to compare student attitudes
and responses toward two different science laboratory learning
experiences. Specifically, reactions to traditional, cookbookstyle, low-inquiry level (LL) activities and a high-inquiry level
(HL) investigative project were compared. In addition, student’s science-related attitudes and attitudes toward science
were measured and compared before and after they were taught
with each of the two methods.
study. Subjects included both male and female students. The advanced
course is the last of four exercise physiology courses required of all
Kinesiology majors and taken in succession. Each course includes a
corequisite laboratory section. In the three previous laboratory sections, students were introduced progressively to statistics, graphing,
internet and library research, hypothesizing, investigative research
design, data collection, report writing, and oral presentation. In
addition, students learned numerous laboratory skills, such as how to
measure aerobic capacity, body composition, muscular power, metabolic rate, etc.
Students were blind to the details of the investigation. When
students were asked to compare the two treatments, they were asked
to compare the first 5-wk period with the second 5-wk period. The
terms “low-level inquiry” and “high-level inquiry” were never used
with the students.
Before data collection began, each subject was given an information sheet to read and keep. Both the study protocol and information
sheet were previously approved by the University Park Institutional
Review Board (USC UPIRB no. 04-12-393) of the University of
Southern California. Each subject participated voluntarily.
Teaching In The Laboratory
STUDENT ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS TOWARD LOW- AND HIGH-LEVEL INQUIRY
terms of enjoyment, motivation, and learning. Students were also
asked whether the investigative project influenced their view of
scientific research and postgraduate and career plans. Finally, students
were asked to briefly discuss their responses and explain what they
liked the most and least about the project.
Table 3. Treatment conditions
Treatment
Inquiry Level
Schwab-Herron level
Problem
Procedures
Expected answers
199
First 5-wk period
Second 5-wk period
Low (LL)
0–1
Given
Given
May or may not be given
High (HL)
3
Identified by students
Developed by students
Not given
Four different dependent variables were assessed quantitatively
with a Likert-scale survey (LSS) based on subscales from two different existing surveys (see APPENDIX C in the Supplemental Material for
the LSS). Part I of the LSS included subscale questions from the Test
of Science-Related Attitudes (TOSRA) and was used to assess 1)
attitudes toward scientific inquiry, 2) adoption of scientific attitudes,
and 3) enjoyment of science lessons (11). Part II of the LSS used
subscale questions from the Student Attitudes Toward Science (STUATT) questionnaire to measure student motivation toward science (7).
The investigator used the original instruction manuals for the administration and scoring of the individual components of the TOSRA and
STUATT questionnaires. The LSS was administered at the beginning
of the laboratory period, three times over the semester: 1) on week 1,
before beginning the LL activities (first LSS); 2) on week 6, after
completing the LL activities but before beginning the HL project
(second LSS); and 3) on week 10, after completing the HL project
(third LSS) (Table 2).
Data Analysis
␹2-analyses were used to determine whether students’ attitudes
toward the two learning experiences differed. One-way repeatedmeasure ANOVA was used to determine whether students’ sciencerelated attitudes and attitudes toward science changed. Statistical
significance was set at P ⬍ 0.05.
TAs
The laboratories were taught by TAs, not the investigator. The TAs
had been previously taught with level 3 inquiry methodology in the
exercise physiology laboratory. Additionally, the investigator spent
time teaching and training the TAs how to apply different levels of
inquiry in the teaching laboratory. The investigator randomly attended
laboratory sections throughout the semester to confirm compliance by
the TAs with the guidelines for teaching the desired levels of inquiry.
Open-Ended Survey
An open-ended survey (OES) was given to the students after they
completed both inquiry treatments (see APPENDIX B in the Supplemental Material for the OES). A portion of the OES questions asked the
students to compare the two 5-wk treatment periods (LL vs. HL) in
1
Supplemental Material for this article is available at the Advances in
Physiology Education website.
RESULTS
OES
Students were asked which 5-wk period they enjoyed more,
which they felt more motivated toward, and which resulted in
more learning. Students had the option of replying the first half
(LL activities), the second half (HL project), or that both were
the same. The results are shown in Table 4. Students were also
asked whether they felt that the project had an influence on
their view of scientific research or their postgraduate plans, and
these results are also shown in Table 4. As a post hoc analysis,
where significance was found, neutral responses (i.e., “both the
same”) were eliminated, and ␹2-analyses were run again. The
results are shown in Table 5. After reporting which half was
more enjoyable, motivating, and resulted in more learning,
students were asked to briefly explain why, and their comments
Table 4. OES results
Which did you enjoy more?
During which half did you feel more
motivated?
During which half do you think you
learned more?
Did the project influence the way you view
scientific research?
Did the project influence your postgraduate
plans?
First Half (LL
Activities), %
Second Half
(HL Project), %
Same
(Neutral), %
17.9
46.2
33.3
59.0
n
␹2-Analysis
P Value
35.9
39
12.32
0.00
30.8
35.9
39
0.39
0.82
17.9
23.1
39
30.08
0.00
Yes, %
n, Number of students.
Advances in Physiology Education • VOL
35 • JUNE 2011
No, %
40.0
60.0
35
4.00
0.046
11.4
88.6
35
59.60
0.00
Downloaded from advan.physiology.org on June 22, 2011
choosing their topics was the equipment and supplies available.
Students were provided a long list of tests they had previously used
and skills previously acquired, as a reminder of the possible methods
available to them (see APPENDIX A in the Supplemental Material for the
list).1 Students were also required to do a brief literature review, write
a hypothesis, design and administer a research protocol, analyze the
data, interpret the findings, and present it by way of both a journal
article-style write up and a PowerPoint presentation. The TAs were
careful not to give the students explicit information about the planning, implementation, or interpretation of the results of the investigation. However, students received minimal guidance, as needed, by
way of small tips and prompts throughout the project. The student
laboratory manual provided an outline of the elements required for a
written project proposal, which was due before beginning data collection. In addition, the laboratory manual contained an outline of a
typical experimental design (i.e., the generic steps, from establishing
the research question to presenting the results). Finally, the laboratory
manual contained an outline for the written report, which explained
the required sections, purpose of each section, and guidelines for
ensuring a thorough report.
Likert-Scale Student Attitude Survey
Teaching In The Laboratory
200
STUDENT ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS TOWARD LOW- AND HIGH-LEVEL INQUIRY
Table 7. OES student comments about the HL project
Table 5. OES results: post hoc analysis
First Half (LL
Activities), %
Which did you enjoy
more?
During which half do
you think you
learned more?
Second Half
(HL Project), %
n
␹2-Analysis
P
Value
28.0
72.0
25
19.36
0.00
77.0
23.0
30
29.16
0.00
n, Number of students.
n
Enjoyment
For those that reported enjoying the HL project more, briefly
explain why.
Independence/responsibility/freedom
Got to do our own experiment
More personally relevant
More fun
More applied
More focused and indepth
For those that reported enjoying LL activities more, briefly
explain why.
Learned more
More structure
17*
5
4
4
3
2
2
6*
4
4
Motivation
For those that reported being more motivated during the HL
project, briefly explain why.
More personally relevant
Got to do our own experiment
More fun
For those that reported being more motivated during LL
activities, briefly explain why.
Mandatory nature
More structure/clear objectives
More variety
11*
5
2
2
14*
8
5
2
Perception of learning
For those that reported learning more during the HL project,
briefly explain why.
Forced to think on their own
Forced to learn more in depth
For those that reported learning more during LL activities,
briefly explain why.
More content covered
More information provided by laboratory manual or
teaching assistant
No new content in second half
Liked the most
What did you like the most about the second half?
Independence/responsibility/freedom
More personally relevant
Got to do our own experiment
More applied
Anticipation of results
Greater sense of accomplishment/ownership
39
13
11
7
4
3
2
Liked the least
What did you like the least about the second half?
Nothing
Lack of structure
Working in a group
It was a lot of work
Don’t like the research process
37*
12
7
7
6
3
View of scientific research
For those that reported that the project influenced their view of
scientific research, briefly explain.
More positive view of scientific research
Increased respect for scientific research
I understand scientific research better now
14*
14
7
2
n, Number of students. *A total of 39 students completed the survey, but not
all of the students responded to all of the questions.
Table 6. OES student comments on enjoyment, motivation,
and learning
Comments
n
7*
5
3
22*
11
6
6
n, Number of students. *A total of 39 students completed the survey, but not
all of the students responded to all of the questions.
among the second half (HL project), the first half (LL activities), and both the same (Table 4).
Perception of learning. Students were asked “during which
half do you think you learned more, specifically, which half
helped you to understand physiological principles better?”
Differences were found in the responses (Table 4), and post
hoc analysis indicated that significantly more students perceived that they learned more during the first 5-wk period (LL
activities; Table 5).
View of scientific research. When asked whether the project
had “an influence on the way you view scientific research?,” most
students reported that their view had not changed (Table 4).
Postgraduate and career plans. When students were asked
“Did this project have any influence on your postgraduate or
career plans?,” most students said that it did not (Table 4).
LSS
Means and SDs found for each attitude measure, at each
time point, are shown in Table 8. Values represent the means
of the sums of each set of subscale scores. Higher sums
represent the measurement of a more positive attitude. Four
one-way repeated-measure ANOVAs were conducted with the
factor being week and the dependent variables being the four
different attitude measures. The results of the ANOVAs indicated no significant difference in any of the variables when the
time points were compared (Table 9).
DISCUSSION
Enjoyment
Students were asked whether they enjoyed the first or second
half of the semester more (LL activities vs. the HL project).
More students enjoyed the HL project better, and this finding is
Advances in Physiology Education • VOL
35 • JUNE 2011
Downloaded from advan.physiology.org on June 22, 2011
are shown in Table 6. Students were also asked what they liked
the most and least about the second half, and the comments are
shown in Table 7. In both Tables 6 and 7, any comment given
by more than one student was included.
Enjoyment. Students were asked “which half did you enjoy
more?,” and differences were found in their responses (Table
4). Post hoc analysis revealed that significantly more students
enjoyed the second 5-wk period (HL project) more (Table 5).
Motivation. When students were asked “during which half
did you feel more motivated to go to the laboratory and to be
in the laboratory?,” student responses were evenly distributed
Comments
Teaching In The Laboratory
STUDENT ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS TOWARD LOW- AND HIGH-LEVEL INQUIRY
Table 8. LSS results
Value
32.93 ⫾ 6.77
34.35 ⫾ 6.87
33.30 ⫾ 6.73
38.83 ⫾ 4.13
38.80 ⫾ 4.17
38.20 ⫾ 5.21
37.75 ⫾ 4.83
38.53 ⫾ 6.16
37.83 ⫾ 6.01
21.73 ⫾ 5.39
22.78 ⫾ 5.12
22.93 ⫾ 5.02
Values are means ⫾ SE; n ⫽ 39 students total.
consistent with similar research conducted on high school and
undergraduate students (7, 14, 16, 18, 31).
The students who enjoyed the HL project more were asked
to explain why, and multiple responses were given. Some
students simply replied that they liked being able to do their
own experiments. It is unclear what aspect of “doing their
own” experiment made it enjoyable for them. It could be that
they liked the independence, responsibility, or ability to make
the project personally relevant. Some students specifically
stated that they enjoyed the independence, responsibility, and
freedom they were afforded during the project, and this finding
has been previously reported (16, 22, 29, 33). Some said that
the project was more personally relevant, since they were able
to choose their own topic. Other students reported that the
project was more “fun,” a word that has been used by students
to describe HL projects in other, similar investigations (22, 24).
Other students liked the HL project because it allowed a more
focused and indepth approach or because it was a more applied
use of the course content. For students who enjoyed the LL
activities more, the reasons given were that they liked the
structure and felt they learned more.
Motivation
Students were asked specifically about their motivation to go
to the laboratories and be in the laboratories during this
investigation. Results showed no consensus. The problem with
making conclusions and comparisons about motivation is that
it can be defined and measured many different ways. In this
study, the term “motivation” was not defined for the students
and, therefore, this left room for individual interpretations.
Many studies (16, 18, 25, 31) have reported instructor-perceived increases in student enthusiasm, energy, and effort with
higher levels of inquiry in the laboratory, which could be
interpreted as increases in motivation. In another study (31),
student attendance, participation, and interaction during LL
and HL teaching laboratories were compared, and quantitative
analysis revealed significantly greater values during HL laboratories. Again, these findings could be interpreted to represent
an increase in student motivation. For the present investigation,
we cannot conclude that the students in this investigation were
more motivated during the HL project. However, it appears
that, at the least, the higher-level inquiry did not have a
negative effect on motivation.
Students who reported greater motivation during the HL
project attributed it to some of the same reasons given for
enjoying it more, including personal relevance. Again, some
students simply replied that they felt more motivated when
they were able to do their own experiments. Others claimed
that the HL project was more motivating because it was more
fun. Based on the work of educational psychologists, students
who are motivated by these characteristics are thought to be
intrinsically motivated. Intrinsic motivation is driven by internal and personal needs such as curiosity, interest, and enjoyment (34). Curiosity is an emotion related to natural inquisitive
behaviors, such as investigation. Intrinsic motivation has also
been described as a tendency to seek and conquer challenges
(34). Because inquiry learning is not what the students are
accustomed to, and because they receive less structure and
guidance, it tends to be more difficult and require more work
on their part. In general, inquiry also requires higher-level
thinking skills, adding to the challenge.
The group who reported that they were more motivated
during LL activities credited their motivation primarily to the
structure and clear objectives. Other students more motivated
during LL activities ascribed it to the mandatory nature of
regular laboratory reports and quizzes, part of the structure and
frequent external accountability typical of LL activities. Extrinsically motivated students are motivated best when they are
required to do something; the reason for doing the activity has
little, if anything, to do with the activity itself. These students
work for some type of external reward (i.e., high grades, to
please the teacher, etc.) or to avoid punishment (i.e., low
grades, disappointing the teacher, etc.). These students do not
value the process as much as the grade at the end. Higher-level
inquiry is all about the process.
The results of this investigation raise the question of whether
there is a connection between a student’s motivation type
(intrinsic vs. extrinsic) and their preference for inquiry level
(high vs. low) in the laboratory. Future research should investigate this question.
Perception of Learning
The majority of the students said that they learned more with
LL activities. Reasons given by students were that more topics
and principles were covered, and the laboratory manual and
TAs provided more information during LL activities. A small
percentage of students felt that they learned more during the
HL project, and they attributed it to being on their own, forced
to think on their own and in more depth. In a previous
Table 9. One-way repeated-measures ANOVA results
Attitude toward scientific inquiry
Adoption of scientific attitudes
Enjoyment of science lessons
Student motivation toward science
n ⫽ 39 students total.
Advances in Physiology Education • VOL
35 • JUNE 2011
Wilkes’ ⌳
F2,38
P Value
0.976
0.986
0.985
0.970
0.465
0.274
0.280
0.585
0.631
0.762
0.757
0.562
Downloaded from advan.physiology.org on June 22, 2011
Attitude to scientific inquiry (10 questions worth
1–5 points each)
First LSS
Second LSS
Third LSS
Adoption of scientific attitudes (10 questions worth
1–5 points each)
First LSS
Second LSS
Third LSS
Enjoyment of science lessons (10 questions worth
1–5 points each)
First LSS
Second LSS
Third LSS
Student motivation toward science (8 questions
worth 1-5 points each)
First LSS
Second LSS
Third LSS
201
Teaching In The Laboratory
202
STUDENT ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS TOWARD LOW- AND HIGH-LEVEL INQUIRY
What Students Liked the Most About the Project
Regardless of which level of inquiry they enjoyed more or
felt more motivated about, students were asked what they liked
the most about the HL project. Again, common themes from
other questions were reiterated. Students favored the independence and responsibility of the HL project. Students liked
having the freedom, including the ability to choose a topic of
personal interest. New themes arose as students mentioned that
they liked being able to apply their knowledge and felt a
greater sense of ownership and accomplishment. Students also
mentioned the excitement and suspense of getting their results
(something that is usually absent in LL activities because the
students already know what to expect). This curiosity and
excitement has been previously reported with similar projects
(22, 25, 28, 33).
What Students Liked the Least About the Project
When asked what they liked the least about the HL project,
⬃30% of the students said there was nothing about it they
disliked. Reported “disliked” aspects included lack of guidance
and structure, working in groups and depending on others, the
amount of work required, and a general dislike for the research
process. Other investigators (9, 16) have also reported the
student perception that HL investigations are harder and
require more work. Moreover, as mentioned above, students
are not generally accustomed to HL, and this often leads to
an uncomfortable struggle and sense of frustration.
View of Scientific Research
About one-third of the students reported that their “view of
scientific research” had changed, and all of these students
indicated that their current attitude is now more positive. These
students explained that they now have a new level of respect
and appreciation for scientists, what they do, and the difficulties involved in research. Other investigators (8, 16, 24) have
also found that students gain an increased respect for science after participating in HL investigative projects. In the
present investigation, one student wrote that “ѧit made me
think about doing research with Alzheimer’s disease and
that there is a lot of stuff out there that has faults in the
studies.” Another student wrote that “There are so many
details that must be accounted for.” These comments are
consistent with previous findings. Both Kolkhorst et al. (16)
and Sundberg and Moncada (29) reported that students had
a decrease in their reliance on science to be true and correct
after participating in level 3 inquiry investigative projects.
This change in view can be interpreted as being more realistic.
One of the objectives clearly outlined in the National Science
Education Standards (23) is that “Students should develop an
understanding of what science is, what science is not, [and]
what science can and cannot do.” The ability to accurately
evaluate the scientific information they are exposed to has
practical implications for personal, social, environmental, and
political decision making. Other attitude changes reported by
students included a new perception that science is exciting and
a realization that science has no boundaries.
Student Anxiety
It has been previously reported that students tend to feel an
increased level of anxiety and frustration while doing HL
activities (4, 28, 29, 33). Although anxiety was not addressed
directly in this investigation, there was evidence of increased
anxiety during the HL project for some students. As mentioned
above, some students expressed a sense of frustration with
group members, and some students reported being uncomfortable with the lack of structure and support. One student said
that they did not like coming to the laboratory during the
Advances in Physiology Education • VOL
35 • JUNE 2011
Downloaded from advan.physiology.org on June 22, 2011
investigation (2), self-assessment by undergraduates revealed
that they perceived no difference in knowledge gained when
level 0 and level 2–3 inquiry laboratory activities were compared. Another study (9) found that students felt that they
learned more with guided inquiry compared with open-inquiry
laboratories. In other investigations (8, 12, 16, 22, 24) using
various types of qualitative and quantitative assessments, students have perceived that they learned more with HL laboratory experiences. In a study by Woodhull-McNeal (33), investigators surveyed students who went on to medical school.
These students said that, although they received fewer “details”
during HL project laboratories, they felt that they built better
conceptual groundwork compared with their experiences in LL
laboratories. It is difficult to compare the findings of present
and previous studies, because the questioning methods and
wording of the questions have been different in each.
In the present study, the wording of the question about
learning specifically referred to the understanding of physiological principles, eliminating the consideration of many other
skills and concepts. Some students felt they learned more with
LL activities because the HL project did not introduce any new
concepts; it was simply an application of material they had
already learned. HL investigations have the potential to teach
students much more than just physiological concepts. The HL
project can be used to teach critical thinking, the nature of
science, research processes, communication skills, laboratory
technical skills, teamwork, and more (10, 24, 26, 33). These
important and defining characteristics of HL investigations
were discounted in the wording of the question that was posed
to the students in this study.
The wording of the question was also poor due to the use of
the word “more.” For some, learning “more” may be interpreted as a greater quantity of low-level cognitive information,
such as facts, definitions, concepts, etc. With LL activities, the
instructor is able to “feed” the students a lot of low-level
cognitive information. It would have been interesting to see
how the students would have responded to a question about the
depth of knowledge and understanding they gained with LL
activities versus the HL project. HL investigations are generally more conducive to the attainment of higher-level cognitive
skills.
As mentioned above, many students commented that the HL
project was just a repeat or review of topics already covered.
These comments suggest that the TAs should have provided
more guidance to the students as they chose their research
questions. Many students took a previous experiment from the
first 5-wk period (or from a previous class) and modified it
slightly for their project. The groups may have done this in an
effort to make the project easy, because they could not think of
anything unique, or because they did not consider all of their
options. It has been previously reported that students tend to
design simplistic experiments unless they are challenged (8).
Teaching In The Laboratory
STUDENT ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS TOWARD LOW- AND HIGH-LEVEL INQUIRY
second 5-wk period (HL project) because they “always knew
there was going to be a problem with our machine and [that] it
would take forever.” Students, in general, do not have a
realistic perception of how scientific investigations run. In
most teaching environments, teachers and TAs perform activities that have low rates of complication and high rates of
success, in essence shielding the students from the realities of
scientific investigations. The students in this study may not
have been mentally prepared for the problems that often arise
during a research investigation.
Postgraduate and Career Plans
LSS
Based on the LSS data, we must conclude that there was no
change in the student attitudes measured in response to participation in either LL activities or the HL project. However, it is
important to point out some possible weaknesses of this data.
The survey used in this study was based on subscales from two
different existing surveys. Although both of these existing
surveys have previously been shown to be reliable, the reliability testing was done with secondary students (7, 11, 15, 30).
The subjects in this investigation were undergraduate students.
Cronbach’s ␣-test is a test of internal consistency, indicating
how closely questions within a subscale are related. A Cronbach’s ␣-value of 0.70 or higher is generally desired. When
Cronbach’s ␣-value was measured on the first LSS, three of the
four subscales were found to have low values (Table 10). In
addition, content validity (the extent to which the questionnaire
accurately measures the desired variable) has not been determined for three of the four subscales used in this investigation.
In hindsight, more thought should have been put into the
design of the LSS.
Because the questions on the LSS were originally designed
for secondary-level students, they were worded in very simple
terms. The unsophisticated nature of the questions (e.g., “science lessons are fun”) may have set the tone for student
responses to the OES, leading to short, simple answers given
little thought. If the present investigation was repeated, the LSS
Table 10. Reliability analysis of the first LSS
Cronbach’s ␣
Attitude toward scientific inquiry
Adoption of scientific attitudes
Enjoyment of science lessons
Student motivation toward science
0.591
0.365
0.716
0.325
would be significantly revised to better match the population
and objectives of the study.
Limitations With the Population
It is important to reiterate that these students were fourthyear Kinesiology majors who had already completed numerous
science laboratory courses. It may have been unrealistic to
expect changes in general attitudes toward science since these
students were already well committed to the field and had
extensive experience with science. Investigators (5, 18) have
found that students taught with inquiry methods acquire significantly enhanced science attitudes, but these studies have
been done with nonmajors and/or in introductory courses. In
addition, it is likely that prior experiences affected student
attitudes, reactions, and responses to the teaching methods in
the present investigation. For a more controlled analysis of LL
versus HL activities, it would be best to use a less experienced
population.
Other Considerations
It is commonly thought that not all students are ready for full
level 3 inquiry. The Schwab-Herron taxonomy is often used as
a guide for introducing inquiry progressively and to assist in
the development of the knowledge and skills required by
inquiry. The students in the present investigation had been
previously, intentionally, and progressively introduced to inquiry levels 0 –2 in prior laboratory courses within the same
department. For the present investigation, LL activities occurred before the HL project. This sequence was used because
the project was considered a culminating project for students in
their final semester before graduation. The nonrandom structure of this research design may have had an unintended affect
on the results. Based on the experience of the subjects, there
was no reason they could not have done the HL project first. It
would be interesting to investigate differences in student responses when the order of treatment is modified (LL activities
first vs. the HL project first). In addition, it would be interesting
to investigate the effects of exposing students to full level 3
inquiry without the progressive introduction followed by LL
activities. Prior exposure to HL activities may result in students
becoming more aware of the concepts and skills required for
HL activities and therefore may strengthen their appreciation
and motivation to learn during LL activities.
Conclusions
The OES provided insight about student attitudes and responses specific to the teaching methods used in the laboratory
course. The findings from this survey suggest that, in general,
1) students enjoy the HL projects more than LL activities, 2)
high-level inquiry does not have a negative effect on student
motivation in the laboratory, and 3) students perceived that
they learned more about physiology principles with LL activities. Most students liked the HL project, particularly the
independence, responsibility, freedom, and personal relevance.
Of the students who did not like the HL project, many reported
being uncomfortable with the lack of structure and guidance.
Many students gained a more positive and realistic view about
scientific research, often reporting increased respect for science. The HL investigative project did not result in measureable quantitative changes in general student attitudes toward
Advances in Physiology Education • VOL
35 • JUNE 2011
Downloaded from advan.physiology.org on June 22, 2011
As would be expected in fourth-year undergraduate students,
the HL project did not cause a change in most students’
postgraduate or career plans. However, some students indicated that they now realize that scientific investigations can be
complicated and difficult. Two students specifically stated that
they now know they do not want to do research as a career.
Similar comments have been previously reported (16, 29). A
few other students expressed a stronger drive to study physiology, also consistent with previous findings (8). Both positive
and negative influences on a students’ decision to go to
graduate school are valuable and useful early in a student’s
educational career.
203
Teaching In The Laboratory
204
STUDENT ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS TOWARD LOW- AND HIGH-LEVEL INQUIRY
scientific inquiry, adoption of scientific attitudes, enjoyment of
science lessons, or motivation toward science. However, it may
not have been realistic to expect such changes with an advanced and experienced group of science majors. The findings
in this study have helped to provide suggestions for better
implementation of HL projects in the future.
Practical Implications
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author thanks Bill McComas, Marcella Raney, Dino Vrongistinos,
Karen Kelly, and Lauren Deutsch for the support and assistance on this project
and manuscript.
DISCLOSURES
No conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, are declared by the author.
REFERENCES
1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Benchmarks for
Scientific Literacy. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1993.
2. Berg CA, Bergendahl VC, Lundberg BK, Tibell LA. Benefiting from an
open-ended experiment? A comparison of attitudes to, and outcomes of, an
expository versus an open-inquiry version of the same experiment. Int J
Sci Educ 25: 351–372, 2003.
3. Bloom BS, Engelhart MD, Furst EJ, Hill WH, Krathwohl DR. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: the Classification of Educational Goals.
Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: McKay, 1956.
4. Booth G. Is inquiry the answer? Sci Teach 68: 57–59, 2001.
5. Brewe E, Kramer L, O’Brien G. Modeling instruction: positive attitudinal shifts in introductory physics measured with CLASS. Phys Rev ST
Phys Educ Res 5: 013102, 2009.
6. Carpenter NE, Pappenfus TM. Teaching research: a curriculum model
that works. J Chem Educ 86: 940 –945, 2009.
7. Cavallo AML, Laubach TA. Students’ science perceptions and enrollment decisions in differing learning cycle classrooms. J Res Sci Teach 38:
1029 –1062, 2001.
8. Chaplin SB. Guided development of independent inquiry in an anatomy/
physiology laboratory. Adv Physiol Educ 27: 230 –240, 2003.
9. Chatterjee S, Williamson VM, McCann K, Peck ML. Surveying students’ attitudes and perceptions toward guided-inquiry and open-inquiry
laboratories. J Chem Educ 86: 1427–1432, 2009.
10. Demir A, Schmidt F, Abell SK. Science from the pond up: using
measurement to introduce inquiry. J Coll Sci Teach 39: 23–27, 2010.
11. Fraser BJ. Test of Science-Related Attitudes Handbook. Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia: The Australian Council for Educational Research, 1981.
12. Harrison JF, Nichols JS, Whitmer AC. Evaluating the impact of
physical renovation, computerization, and use of an inquiry approach in an
undergraduate, allied health human anatomy and physiology lab. Adv
Physiol Educ 25: 202–210, 2001.
13. Herron MD. The nature of scientific enquiry. School Rev 79: 171–212, 1971.
14. Hofstein A, Nahum TL, Shore R. Assessment of the learning environment of inquiry-type laboratories in high school chemistry. Learn Environ
Res 4: 193–207, 2001.
15. Joyce BA, Farenga SJ. Informal science experience, attitudes, future
interest in science, and gender of high-ability students: an exploratory
study. School Sci Math 99: 431– 437, 1999.
16. Kolkhorst FW, Mason CL, DiPasquale DM, Patterson P, Buono MJ.
An inquiry-based learning model for an exercise physiology laboratory
course. Adv Physiol Educ 25: 45–50, 2001.
17. Ledbetter CE. Qualitative comparison of students’ constructions of
science. Sci Educ 77: 611– 624, 1993.
18. Lord T, Orkwiszewski T. Moving from didactic to inquiry-based instruction in a science laboratory. Am Biol Teach 68: 342–345, 2006.
19. Luckie DB, Maleszewski JJ, Loznak SD, Krha M. Infusion of collaborative inquiry throughout a biology curriculum increases student learning: a four-year study of “Teams and Streams”. Adv Physiol Educ 28:
199 –209, 2004.
Advances in Physiology Education • VOL
35 • JUNE 2011
Downloaded from advan.physiology.org on June 22, 2011
The following thoughts and recommendations are based
partly on the data collected in the present investigation and
partly on the author’s experience and personal opinion.
The transition from LL to HL investigations is sometimes
difficult for students, because it is generally not the way they
are accustomed to learning. Students who were least comfortable with the HL project said that they prefer more structure
and guidance. As indicated above, this preference could be
linked to motivation type, specifically, students more extrinsically motivated may be more comfortable with LL activities.
Because there are likely extrinsically motivated students in
every class, instructors implementing HL projects should find
ways to provide more extrinsic motivation without compromising the defining characteristics of HL activities. For example, students can be given several short deadlines rather than a
5-wk period with one large write-up due at the end. As a result
of this investigation, we have since broken down the project
and required five different written deadlines: 1) a list of
references, 2) a research proposal, 3) an introduction and
methods, 4) a first draft, and 5) a final draft.
Frustration with group members was a common complaint
among students. The instructor can help to alleviate such
problems by watching for group tension and intervening as
needed. Two new methods that have been implemented since
this investigation are group contracts and group member grading. It seems that these methods have helped increase individual accountability and the perception of fairness, subsequently
reducing problems within groups.
Some students experienced frustration with technical and
procedural problems that arose during their investigations. It
helps to ease some of this anxiety if the instructor makes it
explicitly known that problems do occur and that they should
be anticipated. For example, students need to know that sometimes data has to be recollected, so they need to plan their time
accordingly. Some students come to realize that their research
protocol has weaknesses after they have invested a significant
amount of time collecting data. Because in the teaching environment there is usually a limited amount of time, anxiety can
be reduced for these students by emphasizing the learning
process over good data. Within some limit, groups should not
be penalized for honest weaknesses and limitations that they
recognize and address in their final report; the important thing
is that they learn from their mistakes. In an ideal and successful
inquiry environment, students are not afraid to take risks and
make mistakes, as long as they can learn from them.
Many students said they liked LL activities better because
they covered more topics, and, as a result, they learned more.
HL projects involve less assigned reading, lecturing, and new
terminology, but cultivate other skills and attitudes that may
not be recognized by many students. Instructors should make
the objectives and potential benefits of the project clear, out-
lining the variety of knowledge, skills, and abilities they will be
learning and practicing.
Many of the student projects were very similar to laboratories
that the students had previously completed. To ensure a wider
variety of projects, the instructor should provide careful guidance
to the student groups as they develop their research questions.
Topics should not be chosen for them, but students should be
encouraged to expand their ideas and incorporate new concepts.
Since this investigation, a notebook of sample projects and research articles has been assembled to provide examples of the
types of projects that are possible and expected.
Teaching In The Laboratory
STUDENT ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS TOWARD LOW- AND HIGH-LEVEL INQUIRY
20. Mager RF. Developing Attitudes Toward Learning. Palo Alto, CA:
Fearon, 1968.
21. McComas WF. The nature of the laboratory experience: a guide for
describing, classifying, and enhancing hands-on activities. CTSA J: 6 –9,
1997.
22. Myers MJ, Burgess AB. Inquiry-based laboratory course improves students’ ability to design experiments and interpret data. Adv Physiol Educ
27: 26 –33, 2003.
23. National Research Council. National Science Education Standards.
Washington, DC: National Academy, 1996.
24. Richter-Egger DL, Hagen JP, Laquer FC. Improving student attitudes
about science by integrating research into the introductory chemistry
laboratory: interdisciplinary drinking water analysis. J Chem Educ 87:
862– 868, 2010.
25. Rivers DB. Using a course-long theme for inquiry-based laboratories in a
comparative physiology course. Adv Physiol Educ 26: 317–326, 2002.
26. Sadler TD, McKinney L. Scientific research for undergraduate students:
a review of the literature. J Coll Sci Teach 39: 43– 49, 2010.
27. Schwab JJ. The teaching of science as enquiry. In: The Teaching of
Science, edited by Schwab JJ, Brandwein, PF. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Univ. Press, 1962.
205
28. Stukus P, Lennox JE. Use of an investigative semester-length laboratory
project in an introductory microbiology course. J Coll Sci Teach 25:
135–139, 1995.
29. Sundberg MD, Moncada GJ. Creating effective investigative laboratories for undergraduates. Biosci 44: 698 –704, 1994.
30. Telli S, den Brok P, Cakiroglu J. Teacher-student interpersonal behavior
in secondary science classes in Turkey. J Classroo Interact 42: 31– 40,
2007/2008.
31. Travis H, Lord T. Traditional and constructivist teaching techniques:
comparing two groups of undergraduate nonscience majors in biology lab.
J Coll Sci Teach 34: 12–18, 2004.
32. Wilke RR. The effect of active learning on student characteristics in a
human physiology course for nonmajors. Adv Physiol Educ 27: 207–223,
2003.
33. Woodhull-McNeal AP. Project labs in physiology. Adv Physiol Educ 6:
29 –32, 1992.
34. Woolfolk AE. Educational Psychology (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon, 1998.
35. Yang L. Toward a deeper understanding of student interest or lack of
interest in science. J Coll Sci Teach 39: 68 –77, 2010.
Downloaded from advan.physiology.org on June 22, 2011
Advances in Physiology Education • VOL
View publication stats
35 • JUNE 2011