The Impact of Integrating Virtual
Inquiry- Based Instruction in
8th Grade Science Classrooms
LAKE STEVENS MIDDLE SCHOOL
Principal: Dr. Derick McKoy
Assistant Principal: Isolyn T. Hillhouse
Teacher Leader: Eliut Villalba
Professional Partner: Thelma Davis
Miami-Dade County Public Schools
2007 -2008 Superintendent’s Urban Principals Initiative
Abstract
Eighty percent of eighth grade students at Lake Stevens Middle
School were not meeting mastery in science. The goal of the action
research project was to engage students in interactive virtual inquiry
based learning to provide the stimulus and motivation that would
assist low performing students in changing their attitudes towards
science, thus raising achievement.
Students received instruction using the Explore Learning Science
Gizmo program for two 55-minute sessions and traditional teaching
methods for three 55-minute sessions weekly. Results of the
interventions were evaluated. Overall, strategies were successful in
stimulating interest and increasing student performance.
Table of Contents
Background
School Profile
Lake Stevens Middle School serves a multi-ethnic community
where approximately 79 percent of the students have been
identified for free or reduced lunch, and the mobility rate is
approximately 37 percent.
The student population of approximately 900 students is 43
percent Hispanic, 52 percent Black, 3 percent White, and 2
percent Asian.
Students participate in small learning communities with a core
team of teachers. Teachers are actively involved in developing
curriculum, methods of assessment and selecting instructional
materials and strategies.
Background
We were concerned with the following trends:
 Many students particularly lower performing students
see science as difficult and lack hope of mastery in this
area.
 Many students lack the interest and enthusiasm needed
to be successful in science class.
 The traditional teaching methods were not meeting the
needs of majority of our students.
The Problem
The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS) , Program for International Student Assessment (PISA,
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the
Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) reports have
all demonstrated the level of weakness in middle school science
achievement.
The Problem Cont.
Results from the TIMSS report (1999) demonstrated:
• The international average - science achievement
score is 521
• Eighth grade students in the United States scored
below the international average with a score of 515 in
science when compared to the 23 nations participating
in the study.
• Eighth grade students in Miami-Dade County Public
School scored even lower with an average of 426.
The Problem Cont.
Results from the TIMSS report (2003) demonstrated:
• The international average - science achievement 474
• Eighth grade students in the United States scored
above the international average with a score of 527 in
science when compared to the 23 nations participating
in the study.
Trend Data: TIMSS Results in Science
600
1999
Mean Scale Score
560
520
493
515
527
-13
400
426
MDCPS
552
543
527
491 488
480
440
578
568
550 552
540
519
2003
-2
Canada
-13
+2
-9
Japan
Hungary
+10
+21
Lithuania
United States
Countries
Australia
Singapore
The Problem
The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA)
revealed:
• On average, 15-year old U.S. students scored lower than the
OECD average (the mean of the 30 OECD countries) on the
combined science literacy scale (489 vs. 500)
On the combined science literacy scale in the United States:
• Black (non-Hispanic) students (409)
• Hispanic students (439)
• White (non-Hispanic) students (523)
• Asian (non-Hispanic) students (499)
• Mixed students of more than one race (non-Hispanic) (501)
Trend Data: PISA Results in Science
Mean Scale Score
525
OECD Average
United States
500
500
494 495
491
475
+1
-9
Reading
Literacy
Science
Literacy
450
Subjects
The Problem Cont.
The NAEP (2005) results demonstrated:
• Science scale scores ranged from 0 to 300 and
indicates lower, middle and higher levels of
performance.
• Eighth grade students in Florida scored a 141 scale
score in science
• Black students had an average score that was
lower than that of White students by 34 points.
The Problem Cont.
• Hispanic students had an average score that was
lower than that of White students by 29 points.
• Students who were eligible for free/reduced-price
school lunch, an indicator of poverty, had an average
score that was lower than that of students who were
not eligible for free/reduced-price school lunch by 27
points.
• The score gap between students at the 75th
percentile and students at the 25th percentile was 47
points.
Trend Data: NAEP Results in Science
(2005)
180
Mean Scale Score
163
162
162
162
160
141
140
138
136
136
132
120
100
North
Dakota
Montana
Vermont
New
Hampshire
Florida
States
Alabama
Hawaii
California
Mississippi
The Problem Cont.
The FCAT (2007) results demonstrated:
38% of 8th grade students in the State of Florida achieved
mastery in science and 62% were performing below standard.
29% of 8th grade students in Miami-Dade County Public
School achieved mastery in science and 71% were
performing below standard.
22% of 8th grade students Lake Stevens Middle School
achieved mastery in science and 78% were performing below
standard.
Trend Data: FCAT Results in Science
300
298
Mean Scale Score
290
287
280
270
280
39
269
260
250
289
286
269
272
272
270
255
255
255
2004
2005
2006
269
State
District
LSMS
248
240
2003
Years
29
2007
Trend Data: FCAT Results in Science
Mean Scale Score
325
300
275
State
LSMS
298
287
289
286
269
280
269
272 272
255
270
255
248
250
225
District
269
255
-39
-31
-17
-34
-29
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
200
Years
Research Questions
How will the use of virtual inquiry-based learning
(science gizmos) increase science achievement of
lower achieving 8th grade students in an urban
middle school setting?
How will the use of virtual inquiry-based learning
(science gizmos) improve students’ attitudes
towards science?
Literature Review
The effectiveness of science gizmos as a teaching tool is
supported by the empirical evidence developed through the
meta-analysis of educational research (Cholmsky, 2003).
Science gizmos are described as a catalog of modular,
interactive simulations that provide teachers with a readymade way to provide instructions that utilize both words and
images simultaneously (Cholmsky, 2003).
The use of computer and internet technology to engage
students in “inquiring-based lessons” with “real world problem
solving, conceptual development, and critical thinking” (Irving,
2006).
Literature Review
Using Gizmos in conjunction with their associated Exploration
Guides, students can generate and test a very wide range of
hypotheses quickly and safely, without the need to set up and
configure any physical apparatus (Cholmsky, 2003)
Virtual interactive programs are designed to provide students with
immediate corrective feedback, multiple representations of a
concept simultaneously, increase student achievement,
motivation and attention span and may be a great teaching tool
for students with disabilities (Young, 2006).
An analysis of the measures of accountability of students in
middle school reveals that many students are not demonstrating
mastery of grade level science skills (Florida A+ Plan, 2007;
Florida Department of Education, 2007; AYP Report, 2007).
Literature Review
The Exploration Guides that accompany every Gizmo are
designed to support and stimulate this type of mindful interaction
(Explore Learning Website, 2008).
Using the summarized findings of over 100 research studies
involving 4,000+ experimental/control group comparisons, the
meta-analysis identified instructional techniques that had a
positive impact on student achievement (Marzano, 1998).
Although many math and science textbooks have increased the
number of images, diagrams, and other graphics on their pages in
recent years, the fact that these visual representations cannot
incorporate motion or be interactive constrains their instructional
power (Cholmsky, 2003).
Literature Review
The Exploration Guide highlights these important aspects of
scientific inquiry, and guides students in evolving and refining
their hypotheses through careful experimentation (Cholmsky,
2003)
Students learn effectively and efficiently when they are first
taught new conceptual categories, generalizations, and
principles directly, only after which they apply them on their
own (Marzano, 1998)
This provides teachers the opportunities to administer
“improved formative assessment through questioning and
immediately feedback and allow teachers to tailor instruction to
meet student’s needs” (Irving, 2006).
Action Plan Timeline
Date
Action
August 2007
Conduct a needs assessment.
May 2008
Analyze FCAT 2007 reading and
mathematics scores for students
(NRT and SSS).
September 2007
Analyze available academic and
non-academic student data.
August 2007
Schedule students correctly.
September & October 2007
Provide training for teachers and
administrators in the efficient
implementation of Explore
Learning Science Gizmo.
Meet with teachers to create a
schedule to incorporate gizmo in
instruction.
October 2007
Develop and administer student
initial surveys.
September 2007
Analyze surveys.
September 2007
Prepare and administer tri-weekly
assessments.
Action Plan Timeline
Date
Action
October 2007
Administer Interim Assessments.
Review assessment results with
students.
September 2007
Review report cards.
September 2007
Monitor teacher attendance.
September 2007
Monitor student attendance.
September 2007
Monitor content delivery and
program use.
September 2007
Monitor student work including
homework.
September 2007
Monitor student achievement.
April 2008
Prepare and administer posttest.
May 2008
Analyze and compare all relevant
data.
May 2008
Prepare final report.
May 2008
Review final report with all
stakeholders.
Action Plan
Curriculum & Instruction
Conduct Needs
Assessment
Professional Development
Collect
Data
Analyze and
Interpret Data
Use
Results
Student Rewards
Increase Student
Achievement
Intervention
Students received instruction using the gizmo
program for two 55-minute sessions and the state
adopted textbook for three 55-minute sessions
weekly.
Students completed inquiry-based activities and
mini quizzes and tests in the gizmo program.
The program generated progress monitoring
reports which were used by teachers and
administrators to make adjustments based on
students’ needs.
Intervention
Students received instruction using the program for
approximately 27 weeks.
Students were exposed to the use of various
teaching strategies.
Instruction was delivered through lectures,
modeling, guided practice, whole group, small
group and one-to-one assistance.
Intervention
A survey was done to determine if students have
access to internet at home to complete frequently
given homework assignments.
The computer lab was available one hour each
day to provide access to the program.
Results from the tri-weekly, interim assessment,
and other progress monitoring tools and surveys
related to the study were collected and analyzed.
Data
Data speaks……..
LSMS Science Assessment Results 2007-2008
Teacher 1
Teacher 2
55
54
50
46
45
44
43
40
39
37
35
51
49
35
42
40
35
34
39
Years
FC
AT
20
08
30
Pr
et
Tr
es
i-w
t
ee
kl
Tr
y
1
i-w
ee
kl
y
2
In
te
rim
Tr
i-w
1
ee
kl
y
3
In
te
rim
2
In
te
rim
3
Median Percentile
60
Assessment Comparison – Teacher 1
Mean Scale Score
60
55
Test 1
54
49
Test 2
Test 3
51
50
46
45
40
42 40
-3
35
+4
30
Tri - Weekly
Interim
Tests
Student Achievement in Mathematics & Reading
FCAT 2007 – Teacher 1
FCAT Level 1
Mathematics
Test 1
Mean Scale Score
45
40
Test 2
37
31
31
30
25
Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
45
42
35
35
50
Test 3
27
+5
+4
20
Tri - Weekly
Interim
Tests
Mean Scale Score
50
FCAT Level 1
Reading
40
40
37
33
35
30
30
27
25
+3
28
+3
20
Tri - Weekly
Interim
Tests
Student Achievement in Mathematics & Reading
FCAT 2007 – Teacher 1
FCAT Level 2
Mathematics
Test 1
50
Test 2
41
34
33
29
30
25
35
0
+1
Test 1
Test 2
42
40
40
36
34
35
30
32
+3
+2
25
20
20
Tri - Weekly
Interim
Tests
Test 3
45
45
41
40
35
50
Test 3
Mean Scale Score
Mean Scale Score
45
FCAT Level 2
Reading
Tri - Weekly
Interim
Tests
Assessment Comparison – Teacher 2
Mean Scale Score
50
45
40
35
Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
44
43
39
39
35 34
+1
+4
30
Interim
Tri - Weekly
Tests
Student Achievement in Mathematics & Reading
FCAT 2007 – Teacher 2
FCAT Level 1
Mathematics
Test 1
40
FCAT Level 1
Reading
Test 2
Test 3
40
37
35
30
25
33
32
29
28
+4
29
+4
Mean Scale Score
Mean Scale Score
36
35
Test 1
Test 2
34
30
30
29
25
+3
28
+3
20
20
Tri - Weekly
Interim
Tests
Test 3
Tri - Weekly
Interim
Tests
31
Student Achievement in Mathematics & Reading
FCAT 2007 – Teacher 2
FCAT Level 2
Mathematics
Test 1
Mean Scale Score
45
40
Test 3
38
50
45
42
38
37
33
35
30
Test 2
+4
33
+4
25
Mean Scale Score
50
FCAT Level 2
Reading
40
Test 1
Test 2
44
42
37
35
35
30
+2
36
33
+1
25
20
20
Tri - Weekly
Interim
Tests
Test 3
Tri - Weekly
Interim
Tests
Comparative Assessments for Tri-Weekly
African-American and
Hispanics Teacher 1
55
54
53
52
50
50
45
50
African-American
Hispanics
-1
50
49
-1
-2
Tri Weekly 2
Tri Weekly 3
40
Mean Scale Score
Mean Scale Score
60
African-American and
Hispanics Teacher 2
45
African-American
Hispanics
45
44
42
41
40
35
38
-3
37
-3
-4
30
Tri Weekly 1
Tests
Tri Weekly 1
Tri Weekly 2
Tests
Tri Weekly 3
Comparative Assessments for Interim
African-American and
Hispanics Teacher 1
African-American
Hispanics
44
45
41
40
40
35
+3
45
45
African-American
Hispanics
46
40
+1
0
Mean Scale Score
Mean Scale Score
50
African-American and
Hispanics Teacher 2
39
40
38
35
35
34
35
0
33
-1
-1
30
30
Interim 1
Interim 2
Tests
Interim 3
Interim 1
Interim 2
Tests
Interim 3
Action Plan
Action for Implementation
All tested
Benchmarks
Fidelity in
Implementation
Data-Driven
Instruction
Results
Student
Achievement
Inquiry-Based
Curriculum
Technology
Student
Attitude
Findings/Results
Students were more excited about
science classes when they used the gizmo program..
More students participated in doing homework when
they used the gizmo program .
Students demonstrated growth in science achievement
over the implementation period.
The most significant achievement was evident among
students scoring level 1 in mathematics
Findings/Results
Students scoring level 1 in reading demonstrated a 1%
percentage point increase in science achievement on Tri-weekly.
Students scoring level 2 in reading demonstrated a
4%percentage point increase in science achievement on Tri-weekly.
Students scoring level 1 in reading demonstrated a
4% percentage point increase in science achievement on Interim.
Students scoring level 2 in reading demonstrated a
1% percentage point increase in science achievement on Interim.
Findings/Results
Students scoring level 1 in mathematics demonstrated a
4% percentage point increase in science achievement on Tri-weekly.
Students scoring level 2 in mathematics demonstrated a
1% percentage point increase in science achievement on Tri-weekly.
Students scoring level 1 in mathematics demonstrated a
3% percentage point increase in science achievement on Interim.
Students scoring level 2 in mathematics demonstrated a
1% percentage point increase in science achievement on Interim.
Findings/Results
African American students demonstrated a 1% percentage
point increase in science achievement on Tri-weekly.
African American students demonstrated a 2% percentage
point increase in science achievement on Interim.
Hispanic students demonstrated
a 1% percentage
.
point decrease in science achievement on Tri-weekly.
Hispanic students demonstrated a 3% percentage
point increase in science achievement on Interim.
Recommendations
1. Improve gizmo program to include all tested
benchmarks.
2. Provide common planning for teachers to ensure
collaboration and shared best practices.
3. Continue to upgrade technology in classrooms
4. Increase the amount of time available to teachers
for each session to utilize the technology lab.
5. Increase the number of labs and proximity to
science wing.
References
Applegate, B. & Miron, G. (2000) Evaluation of student achievement in
Edison schools. The Evaluation Center, 1, 1-10.
ASAP eLearning (2007) Chapter 2: Teaching and learning by design.
Essentials of Instructional Leadership, 1, 1-3.
Cholmsky, P. (2003) Why gizmos work: Empirical evidence for the
instructional effectiveness of explore learning’s interactive
content. Explore Learning, 1,
1 – 27.
Dreher, M.J. (2007) EDCI 663: Issues in reading Education. University of
Maryland, College Park Department of Curriculum and Instruction,
1, 1-10.
Explore Learning (2007) Why explore learning? Retrieved September 14,
2007, from http://www.explorelearning.com/index.cfm?method=c
Corp.dspLearnMore.
References
Irving, K. (2006). The impact of technology on the 21st century. Teaching
Science in the 21st Century, 1, 3-19.
Marzano, R. J. (1998) A theory-based meta-analysis of research on
instruction.
Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for
Education and Learning.
Miami-Dade County Public Schools (2001) Summary. USP Miami RISE
Annual Report, 2000-2001, 1, 1-28.
National Center for Education Statistics (2005) The nation’s report card state
science 2005. NAEP, 1, 1.
TIMSS & Pirls International Study Center (2003) Chapter 1: International
Student Achievement in Science. TIMSS 2003, 1, 33-55.
References
TIMSS & Pirls International Study Center (2003) Chapter 3: Average
achievement in the science content areas. TIMSS 2003, 1, 107127.
TIMSS National Research Center (2001) Comparison of eighth grade
mathematics and science achievement: 1999 TIMSS-R results for
the US. TIMSS 1999, 1, 1.
U.S. Department of Education (2006) Highlights from PISA 2006:
Performance of U.S. 15 year old students in science and
mathematics literacy in an international context.. Institute of
Education Sciences, 1, 1-74.
U.S. Department of Education (2006) Program for international student
assessment 2003. Institute of Education Sciences, 1, 1-142.