Jeff C. Marshall, PhD
Clemson University
ASTE Paper Presentation
January, 2011
•
Reform documents have defined inquiry-based practice (National
Research Council, NRC, 1996) and articulated what it looks like
compared to non-inquiry approaches (Llewellyn, 2005; NRC, 2000).
•
High-quality, frequent inquiry-based instruction in science
classrooms still not the norm.
•
Differing viewpoints exist for how inquiry-based instruction should
be implemented, result in challenges for as teachers transition to
inquiry-based practices (Anderson, 2002).
•
Numerous factors determine the degree to which teachers transition
to inquiry-based practices and include such things as:
• beliefs, support, content knowledge, pedagogical content
knowledge, and PD to support implementation (Ball & Cohen,
1999; Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000; NRC, 2000).

This study specifically examines how
sustained involvement in a professional
development (PD) experience assists teachers
as they transition to more inquiry-based
instructional practice.

Participants
• Three high school physical science teachers (Anne,
Beth, and Carla)—purposeful selection
•
Setting and Context:
• Year-long PD experience that focused on
developing content-embedded inquiry practice
with secondary math and science teachers
• Eight days in the summer
• Four days of follow-up during the school year
•
Multiple case design (Yin, 2003)—Within-case
analysis, followed by a cross-case analysis
•
Data collection involved the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
(1) pre and post definitions of inquiry-based
instruction,
(2) classroom observations, structured by inquiry
observational protocol (EQUIP),
(3) field notes from observations,
(4) pre and post survey data,
(5) teacher interviews, and
(6) transcripts of classroom recordings.
Case 1:
Anne
Case 2:
Beth
Case 3:
Carla
Cross-Case:
Role of Teacher
Facilitator of learning: I need to
truly understand what they’re
talking about and to see if they’re
just using words they’ve heard
before without any true
understanding of the science
content.
Shifting roles from giver Developing facilitator: If I ask a
of knowledge to
student a question now, I want to
facilitator: Teaching using say, ‘What do you think about it?’
inquiry has helped me not instead of me just expecting an
to just give students all the answer or answering the
answers.
question or giving them too much
information.
Cross-Case:
Questioning
Strategies
Consistently engaging and
challenging: Utilized questioning
to scaffold student learning, assess
student knowledge, and challenge
students to interact with science
content at higher cognitive levels.
Old habits hard to
break: Defaulted
primarily to closed,
lower-level questioning
strategies during inquiry
investigations.
All-or-none: Adopted an “allor-nothing” approach to inquiry
and her questioning patterns
demonstrated that idea.
Cross-Case:
Role of Students
Students must think and justify
responses: Students’ desires to
always be right made it
challenging to get them to “think
on their own” during inquiry
learning.
Students need to
become independent:
Felt student
independence is
necessary for inquirybased instruction to be
effective.
Students must engage
collaboratively: She saw
students began thinking and
actively seeking information
from their peers during lab
explorations.
Cross-Case:
Content
Background
Inquiry best in content forte’: All three clearly acknowledged, agreed, and displayed better
inquiry in content area where teaching experience and content knowledge was greatest. Inquiry
success not limited to specific domain of science. Anne was best in physics; Beth in biology; and
Carla in chemistry.
Case 1:
Anne
Case 2:
Beth
Case 3:
Carla
Cross-Case:
Role of Teacher
Facilitator of learning: I need to
truly understand what they’re
talking about and to see if they’re
just using words they’ve heard
before without any true
understanding of the science
content.
Shifting roles from giver Developing facilitator: If I ask a
of knowledge to
student a question now, I want to
facilitator: Teaching using say, ‘What do you think about it?’
inquiry has helped me not instead of me just expecting an
to just give students all the answer or answering the
answers.
question or giving them too much
information.
Cross-Case:
Questioning
Strategies
Consistently engaging and
challenging: Utilized questioning
to scaffold student learning, assess
student knowledge, and challenge
students to interact with science
content at higher cognitive levels.
Old habits hard to
break: Defaulted
primarily to closed,
lower-level questioning
strategies during inquiry
investigations.
All-or-none: Adopted an “allor-nothing” approach to inquiry
and her questioning patterns
demonstrated that idea.
Cross-Case:
Role of Students
Students must think and justify
responses: Students’ desires to
always be right made it
challenging to get them to “think
on their own” during inquiry
learning.
Students need to
become independent:
Felt student
independence is
necessary for inquirybased instruction to be
effective.
Students must engage
collaboratively: She saw
students began thinking and
actively seeking information
from their peers during lab
explorations.
Cross-Case:
Content
Background
Inquiry best in content forte’: All three clearly acknowledged, agreed, and displayed better
inquiry in content area where teaching experience and content knowledge was greatest. Inquiry
success not limited to specific domain of science. Anne was best in physics; Beth in biology; and
Carla in chemistry.
Case 1:
Anne
Case 2:
Beth
Case 3:
Carla
Cross-Case:
Role of Teacher
Facilitator of learning: I need to
truly understand what they’re
talking about and to see if they’re
just using words they’ve heard
before without any true
understanding of the science
content.
Shifting roles from giver Developing facilitator: If I ask a
of knowledge to
student a question now, I want to
facilitator: Teaching using say, ‘What do you think about it?’
inquiry has helped me not instead of me just expecting an
to just give students all the answer or answering the
answers.
question or giving them too much
information.
Cross-Case:
Questioning
Strategies
Consistently engaging and
challenging: Utilized questioning
to scaffold student learning, assess
student knowledge, and challenge
students to interact with science
content at higher cognitive levels.
Old habits hard to
break: Defaulted
primarily to closed,
lower-level questioning
strategies during inquiry
investigations.
All-or-none: Adopted an “allor-nothing” approach to inquiry
and her questioning patterns
demonstrated that idea.
Cross-Case:
Role of Students
Students must think and justify
responses: Students’ desires to
always be right made it
challenging to get them to “think
on their own” during inquiry
learning.
Students need to
become independent:
Felt student
independence is
necessary for inquirybased instruction to be
effective.
Students must engage
collaboratively: She saw
students began thinking and
actively seeking information
from their peers during lab
explorations.
Cross-Case:
Content
Background
Inquiry best in content forte’: All three clearly acknowledged, agreed, and displayed better
inquiry in content area where teaching experience and content knowledge was greatest. Inquiry
success not limited to specific domain of science. Anne was best in physics; Beth in biology; and
Carla in chemistry.
Case 1:
Anne
Case 2:
Beth
Case 3:
Carla
Cross-Case:
Role of Teacher
Facilitator of learning: I need to
truly understand what they’re
talking about and to see if they’re
just using words they’ve heard
before without any true
understanding of the science
content.
Shifting roles from giver Developing facilitator: If I ask a
of knowledge to
student a question now, I want to
facilitator: Teaching using say, ‘What do you think about it?’
inquiry has helped me not instead of me just expecting an
to just give students all the answer or answering the
answers.
question or giving them too much
information.
Cross-Case:
Questioning
Strategies
Consistently engaging and
challenging: Utilized questioning
to scaffold student learning, assess
student knowledge, and challenge
students to interact with science
content at higher cognitive levels.
Old habits hard to
break: Defaulted
primarily to closed,
lower-level questioning
strategies during inquiry
investigations.
All-or-none: Adopted an “allor-nothing” approach to inquiry
and her questioning patterns
demonstrated that idea.
Cross-Case:
Role of Students
Students must think and justify
responses: Students’ desires to
always be right made it
challenging to get them to “think
on their own” during inquiry
learning.
Students need to
become independent:
Felt student
independence is
necessary for inquirybased instruction to be
effective.
Students must engage
collaboratively: She saw
students began thinking and
actively seeking information
from their peers during lab
explorations.
Cross-Case:
Content
Background
Inquiry best in content forte’: All three clearly acknowledged, agreed, and displayed better
inquiry in content area where teaching experience and content knowledge was greatest. Inquiry
success not limited to specific domain of science. Anne was best in physics; Beth in biology; and
Carla in chemistry.
Case 1:
Anne
Cross-Case:
Conceptions
of Inquiry
Cross-Case:
Beliefs in
Inquiry
Practice
Cross-Case:
Summary
Case 2:
Beth
Case 3:
Carla
Solid understanding: Surface understanding: Developing
consistent, wellpre- and post responses understanding: solid
aligned with NSES
lacked any specificity
growth seen toward deeper
definition
understanding, which
included understanding of
Nature of Science
Maintained High
Decreased or stable
Increased Belief:
Belief: motivation and Belief: reported amount both actual and ideal
implementation
of inquiry practice
amount of inquiry
remained high despite decreased, but practice increased, which was
lower perceived
remained constant
supported by
administrative
suggesting better
observations
support.
understanding not
decreased amount
Thriving: solid in
Stuck: some growth but Great improvement:
terms of inquiry
seems developmentally motivated to use inquiry
practice
stuck in practice
and grew significantly but
still indicates a need for
further support to continue
changing.
Case 1:
Anne
Cross-Case:
Conceptions
of Inquiry
Cross-Case:
Beliefs in
Inquiry
Practice
Cross-Case:
Summary
Case 2:
Beth
Case 3:
Carla
Solid understanding: Surface understanding: Developing
consistent, wellpre- and post responses understanding: solid
aligned with NSES
lacked any specificity
growth seen toward deeper
definition
understanding, which
included understanding of
Nature of Science
Maintained High
Decreased or stable
Increased Belief:
Belief: motivation and Belief: reported amount both actual and ideal
implementation
of inquiry practice
amount of inquiry
remained high despite decreased, but practice increased, which was
lower perceived
remained constant
supported by
administrative
suggesting better
observations
support.
understanding not
decreased amount
Thriving: solid in
Stuck: some growth but Great improvement:
terms of inquiry
seems developmentally motivated to use inquiry
practice
stuck in practice
and grew significantly but
still indicates a need for
further support to continue
changing.
Case 1:
Anne
Cross-Case:
Conceptions
of Inquiry
Cross-Case:
Beliefs in
Inquiry
Practice
Cross-Case:
Summary
Case 2:
Beth
Case 3:
Carla
Solid understanding: Surface understanding: Developing
consistent, wellpre- and post responses understanding: solid
aligned with NSES
lacked any specificity
growth seen toward deeper
definition
understanding, which
included understanding of
Nature of Science
Maintained High
Decreased or stable
Increased Belief:
Belief: motivation and Belief: reported amount both actual and ideal
implementation
of inquiry practice
amount of inquiry
remained high despite decreased, but practice increased, which was
lower perceived
remained constant
supported by
administrative
suggesting better
observations
support.
understanding not
decreased amount
Thriving: solid in
Stuck: some growth but Great improvement:
terms of inquiry
seems developmentally motivated to use inquiry
practice
stuck in practice
and grew significantly but
still indicates a need for
further support to continue
changing.
•
Teachers know that they need to be facilitating inquiry-based
learning experiences in their classrooms.
•
However, they are generally very uncertain how to bridge
from awareness to competent practice.
•
Uncertainty stems from :
•
discrepancy in teachers’ conceptions of inquiry (Anderson, 2002), and
•
inquiry’s complex, multifaceted nature can make inquiry a challenging
method to implement (Vanosdall et al., 2007; Windschitl, 2008).
•
The degree of growth was influenced by some or all of the
following factors:
 Beliefs toward inquiry as an important instructional method
 Motivation to implement inquiry in their classrooms
 Support (administrative, peer, curriculum, PD) that they
receive to encourage its implementation
 Content knowledge in the subject being taught
 Amount of exposure and practice using the method
•
Bring cohorts of teachers together in order to
develop a support network/culture of inquiry
•
Provide experiences that differentiate based on
prior knowledge, understandings, and beliefs
of the participants

Jeff C. Marshall
 marsha9@clemson.edu

Inquiry in Motion Website
 www.clemson.edu/iim
This material is based upon the work supported by the National Science
Foundation under Grant #DRL-0952160.
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the
author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.