University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Assessing the effectiveness of an inquiry-based science education professional development

(USC Thesis Other)

Assessing the effectiveness of an inquiry-based science education professional development

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 1

ASSESSING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AN INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE
EDUCATION PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

by

Mark C. Gomez

___________________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2012

Copyright 2012 Mark C. Gomez
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 2

DEDICATION
This dissertation and the efforts behind it is dedicated to Ms. Lynn Rankin and every
other passionate and dedicated teacher who strives to make science learning fun and enjoyable
for their students. It was because of Ms. Rankin that my love for science and inquiry was
cultivated. It was because of Ms. Rankin that I chose science as my career path and majored in
general biology at the University of California, San Diego. It was because of Ms. Rankin that I
was motivated to serve others and pursued a career in science teaching at the University of
California, Los Angeles. It was because of Ms. Rankin that I wanted to make a difference in the
world of science education and accomplished this goal of obtaining my doctorate from the
University of Southern California. As Henry Brooks Adams said, “A teacher affects eternity. He
can never tell where his influence stops.” I am a testament to how far a teacher’s influence can
reach and how much a teacher’s heart can inspire, and I encourage all teachers to remember that
if you’ve changed the life of just one individual, then you’ve changed the life of thousands.
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I dedicate this long and arduous journey to my loving wife, Carolyn,
who has traversed with me at every step. At my orientation, my professors said that this process
is never done alone. I realize now the full magnitude of that statement. Thank you, first for
believing in me that I can do this, even if I did not. Thank you for your unwavering support
throughout this entire process; for knowing when to step aside and give me my space when I
needed it, even if it meant sacrificing our time together, but also for knowing when to assert
yourself, showing me that there is more to my life than this paper and more that defines me than
my title of “Doctor of Education.” You are truly my rock and the epitome of what marriage
should be. You’re my only and I’m yours.
The man I have become is because I have been blessed with parents who have always
loved me, who have always been there for me, and who have always nurtured me. Thank you
ma and pa for all your support. Thank you, mother, for loving me no matter what and for
instilling in me the importance of an education. Thank you, father, for all the hard work you
have put into providing for our family, and for teaching me how far a strong work ethic can take
you.
Thanks to my Kuya Michael for paving the way for me and for your guidance.
Whenever I have felt the waters rough and the road too difficult, I always remembered your
words to me, “If being a doctor were easy, then everyone would do it.”
Thanks to my committee members: Dr. Hocevar, Dr. Garcia, and Dr. Hasan, Dr.
Hocevar, thank you for your no-nonsense approach, the amount of independence you gave me,
and for your sage wisdom. Thank you Dr. Garcia and Dr. Hasan for your guidance in my final
stages of my dissertation.
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 4

I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge some key people in my life. Thanks to Dr.
Freking for the opportunity of a lifetime in helping to facilitate and study the NAI-STEM
program. I look forward to continued endeavors with you. Thanks to Dr. DeGuzman for your
mentorship and for your friendship. I appreciate your willingness to take me under your wing
and be a role model for me. Thanks to all my family, friends, and colleagues for your words of
encouragement. This has truly been an experience that I will never forget.

ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ..............................................................................................................................2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..........................................................................................................3
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ............................................................................................7
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................8
CHAPTER 1: THE PROBLEM ...................................................................................................9
Introduction ...............................................................................................................................9
Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................................11
Purpose of the Study ...............................................................................................................14
Research Questions .................................................................................................................15
Importance of the Study ..........................................................................................................16
Definition of Terms .................................................................................................................17
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................19
Inquiry-based instruction ........................................................................................................19
Definition of Inquiry ...........................................................................................................19
Characteristics of inquiry ....................................................................................................20
5E instructional model ........................................................................................................22
Standards-based instruction ....................................................................................................24
The effects of standards-based curriculum .........................................................................24
Addressing the inquiry and standards dichotomy ...............................................................27
Professional Development ......................................................................................................30
Deficiencies of traditional professional development .........................................................30
Characteristics of high-quality professional development ..................................................33
Online professional development .......................................................................................37
Online learning theory ............................................................................................................40
Emerging online learning theory ........................................................................................40
Synchronous online learning ...............................................................................................42
Asynchronous online learning ............................................................................................43
Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................44
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................................45
Design Summary .....................................................................................................................46
Participants and Setting ...........................................................................................................49
Intervention .............................................................................................................................50
Instrumentation and Procedures ..............................................................................................52
Surveys ................................................................................................................................52
Interviews ............................................................................................................................53
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 6

Analysis...................................................................................................................................56
Limitations ..............................................................................................................................56
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ............................................................................................................58
Participants ..............................................................................................................................59
Level One: Reaction ...............................................................................................................59
Exit Surveys ........................................................................................................................59
Survey Results ....................................................................................................................60
Level Two: Learning ...............................................................................................................62
Pre- and Post-Surveys .........................................................................................................62
Survey Results ....................................................................................................................63
Level Three: Application ........................................................................................................67
Teacher Observations ..........................................................................................................67
Observation Results ............................................................................................................68
Teacher Interviews ..............................................................................................................68
Interview Results ................................................................................................................69
Level Four: Results .................................................................................................................71
Pre- and Post-Test Results ..................................................................................................71
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................74
Overview of the Study ............................................................................................................74
Discussion of Findings Relative to Literature Review ...........................................................75
Integration of Inquiry ..........................................................................................................76
Difficulty with Technology Use .........................................................................................77
Effectiveness of the Professional Development .................................................................78
Implications for Professional Development ............................................................................81
Develop Technological Literacy .........................................................................................81
Ensuring a Stronger Sense of Accountability .....................................................................82
Developing Spaces for Critical Reflection .........................................................................82
Recommendations for Future Study .......................................................................................83
Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................84
REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................................86
APPENDIX A: POST-SURVEY FOR LEVEL ONE & LEVEL TWO STUDY ......................97
APPENDIX B: PRE-SURVEY FOR LEVEL TWO STUDY ...................................................99
APPENDIX C: OBSERVATION RUBRIC FOR LEVEL THREE STUDY ..........................101
APPENDIX D: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR LEVEL THREE STUDY ..........................102
APPENDIX E: SAMPLE PRE-POST TESTS FOR LEVEL FOUR STUDY .........................103

ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 7

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
TABLES
Table 1: Levels of Inquiry (Herron, 1971) ..................................................................................12

Table 2: Levels of Inquiry (Abrams et al., 2007) ........................................................................13

Table 3: Teacher Exit-Survey Mean Scores ................................................................................60

Table 4: Teacher Overall Self-Efficacy Survey Mean Scores .....................................................64

Table 5: Inquiry-Based Teaching Self-Efficacy Survey Mean Scores ........................................65

Table 6: Student Pre- and Post-Test Results ...............................................................................72

FIGURES
Figure 1: NAI-STEM Professional Development ......................................................................51

Figure 2: Level Two Survey Sample Questions .........................................................................53

Figure 3: Teacher Interview Protocol .........................................................................................54

Figure 4: Sample Pre-Post Test Questions .................................................................................55

ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 8

ABSTRACT
Both inquiry-based science teaching and online learning opportunities have grown in popularity
with recent pressures in the educational field. Despite such interest in both topics, there is both
conflicting research and limited research in the effectiveness of inquiry-based teaching methods
and online learning respectively. This study focused on the Neighborhood Academic Initiative
STEM (NAI-STEM) professional development program that concentrated on inquiry science
learning using an online platform. The attendees participated in both synchronous and
asynchronous online sessions that facilitated their implementation of an inquiry-based
curriculum to urban high school students around the University of Southern California area. The
effectiveness of this professional development was assessed using Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of
Evaluation model (1996), utilizing tools such as pre- and post-surveys, teacher observations and
interviews, and student pre- and post-assessment scores. Results suggest that inquiry-based
teaching is effective in increasing student science academic achievement, but further studies
should be conducted to test the generalizability of this professional development design.
Keywords: STEM education, inquiry-based science teaching, online learning, Kirkpatrick
four levels of evaluation, professional development

ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 9

CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM
Introduction
In the fall of 2009, President Obama launched his “Educate to Innovate” initiative, which
aimed to bolster American education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(Office of the Press Secretary, 2009). This campaign arose amidst the backdrop of increasing
global economies and academic achievement in both developed and developing countries
coinciding with America’s decreasing global competitiveness in science, technology, engineering,
and math. (Emeagwali, 2010). In an address to the National Academy of Sciences in 2009,
President Obama brought attention to the unacceptable performance of American students
compared to other nations and emphasized the need for America to recommit to becoming a
global leader in technology and innovation:
A half century ago, this nation made a commitment to lead the world in scientific and
technological innovation; to invest in education, in research, in engineering; to set a goal
of reaching space and engaging every citizen in that historic mission. That was the high
water mark of America’s investment in research and development. And since then our
investments have steadily declined as a share of our national income. As a result, other
countries are now beginning to pull ahead in the pursuit of this generation’s great
discoveries. I believe it is not in our character, the American character, to follow. It’s
our character to lead. (Obama, 2009, p. 24)

The “Educate to Innovate” campaign effort includes over $260 million in public and private
investments to help push American students from the middle to the top of the pack in
international academic achievement in science and math. These investments will be largely
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 10

utilized to address increasing literacy in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM),
improving the quality of teaching in math and sciences, and the expansion of STEM education
and career opportunities for underrepresented groups (Office of the Press Secretary, 2009). Yet
if America is to improve the quality of its science education to compete with and lead 21
st

century schools, it must do so despite the seemingly counterproductive objectives of the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB).
For the science educator who is attempting to determine what a quality education entails
for their students, a dichotomy of contrasting pressures results from the two reform movements
of Obama’s “Educate to Innovate” initiative, and the standards-based accountability measures of
NCLB. The “Educate to Innovate” campaign calls for scientists and mathematicians to not only
be produced through an American education, but they must be done so with the innovation and
critical thinking skills to not only solve current issues in medicine, the environment, technology
and engineering, but other problems yet to be discovered as well. Science educators are left to
this task of developing students with these critical thinking skills needed to compete in a
technologically burgeoning world. As such, science educators are asked to create “21
st
century
schools”, that is to revise teaching and learning methodologies and curriculum that reflects the
higher-order thinking skills needed to compete in a technologically burgeoning world (Carnegie
Council on Adolescent Development, 1989; Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy;
Schlecty, 2001).
Yet, the ability to provide such skills is hindered by the contrasting accountability
demands of NCLB. The expectations under NCLB require that by the year 2014, 100% of
students must reach the proficient level or above in their state-determined assessments. Schools
across the nation are looking at student performance in these standard assessments as they relate
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 11

to the adequate yearly progress (AYP) requirements under NCLB. As such, teachers are put
under tremendous pressure to emphasize the content of learning through standards-based
teaching and prepare students to perform on these standardized state tests. Science teachers,
especially those in urban settings, are left in a precarious position in determining how to navigate
through the student-centered teaching demands of initiatives such as “Educate to Innovate”
juxtaposed to the established standards-based environment under NCLB. Teacher education
programs and continuing education must be prepared to negotiate between these contrasting
views and provide the tools necessary to provide both an inquiry-based and standards-based
education.
Statement of the Problem
The National Research Council (NRC) compiled a number of research studies from fields
such as child development and cognitive brain research to determine how people learn science.
Based on these studies, the NRC advocated (1) the development of concepts, theories, and
models, (2) the understanding of how scientific knowledge is generated, and (3) opportunities to
utilize scientific knowledge to engage in new inquiry (Bransford, 2005). Under the new
principles of science instruction outlined by the NRC, traditional methods of science instruction
such as the reciting of science facts and vocabulary are insufficient in developing students’
scientific knowledge. The NRC suggested inquiry-based curriculum and instruction as an
effective component to science instruction. Unfortunately, many of the current science
classrooms adhere to the didactic traditional style of teaching, leaving little opportunity for
students to practice the inquiry inherent in the scientific process (National Research Council,
2000). The problem then becomes twofold. First, if inquiry is to be incorporated into
classrooms, how do teachers effectively integrate inquiry methods in their instruction and
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 12

curriculum? The second and perhaps a more fundamental question is, what type of inquiry is
most effective for student achievement?
Perhaps a major reason why current science education is misaligned to the emphasis on
inquiry by the NRC is that there is confusion over what inquiry really is. While there is
consensus among researchers and educators that the integration of inquiry-based instruction can
be beneficial for student learning, there is debate over what inquiry really entails and the degree
of inquiry that should be integrated into the classroom. Herron (1971) provides an apt
explanation of the varying degrees of inquiry based on his classification system that divides
classroom activities based on the level of student inquiry. Based on the work of Schwab (1962),
Herron classified inquiry activites based on the amount of information provided for the student
and the amount of independence in which the student can interpret and produce new knowledge.
Three pieces of information are of concern in any lab or other activity: the problem, the
procedure, and the solution. An activity’s level of inquiry is based on whether the problem,
procedure, and solution are directed or “given” by text or instructor, or “open” for the student to
establish (see Table 1).
Table 1

Levels of Inquiry (Herron, 1971)
Level Problem Procedure Solution
0
1
2
3
Given
Open
Open
Open
Given
Given
Open
Open
Given
Given
Given
Open

Abrams, Southerland, and Evans (2007) devised an updated framework based on
Schwab, labeling level 0 inquiry as verification inquiry, level one as structured inquiry, level two
as guided inquiry, and level three as open inquiry. By associating terms with each level,
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 13

educators get a clearer picture of the student experience with inquiry. At the verification level,
student are given the scientific problem, the data collection methods, and the interpretation of the
results. The activity only asks students to verify that the scientific concept is true. Structured
and guided inquiry levels involve varying degrees of teacher guidance or scaffolding with
student inquiry, with the teacher providing the scientific problem. In open inquiry, there is
minimal guidance as students are given free reign over determining the scientific question, data
collection, and interpretation of results (see table 2).
Table 2

Levels of Inquiry (Abrams et al., 2007)
Level Source of scientific
question
Data collection
methods
Interpretation of
results
0: Verification
1: Structured
2: Guided
3: Open
Given
Given
Given
Open
Given
Given
Open
Open
Given
Open
Open
Open

In one end of the spectrum, verification activities allow for little student inquiry as the teacher,
textbook, or other resource provide knowledge at every step in the scientific process. At the
other end, open inquiry allows for full student inquiry from beginning to the end of the scientific
process. While the NRC and other educational reform entities caution the design of a curriculum
heavily based on verification activities and devoid of inquiry (Blanchard et al., 2010), there is a
growing sentiment among researchers that caution favoring the other end of the spectrum and
utilizing open inquiry as well.
While the advocacy of science instruction using open inquiry methods have been long
established (e.g., Bruner, 1961; Papert, 1980; Steffe & Gale, 1995), a number of researchers
argue that providing minimal guidance as suggested in open inquiry is ineffective and potentially
harmful for student learning. Kirchner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) draw on research from human
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 14

cognitive architecture, comparisons of guided and unguided instruction, and inconsistencies with
educational models favoring minimal guidance to support their claim. Research on human
cognitive architecture has dramatically changed the understanding of the role of both long-term
and working memory. Kirschner et al. note that the alteration of long-term memory through the
interaction of working memory should be the dominant goal of instruction. Instructional
activities that provide minimal guidance puts heavy demands on working memory. As a result,
working memory is being utilized for problem solving solutions, preventing the interaction of
working memory to long-term memory for knowledge accumulation. Citing a number of
empirical studies (e.g., Mayer, 2004; Klahr & Nigam, 2004), Kirschner et al. goes further to
suggest that guided instruction provides the optimal learning condition as opposed to pure
discovery instruction. Juxtaposed to minimally guided instruction, guided instruction such as
worked examples, process worksheets, and other scaffolding methods produces less cognitive
load on working memory, resulting in more immediate recall of facts and information as well as
longer term transfer and problem-solving skills.
Purpose of the Study
Educational policy entities such as the NSES and NRC call for inquiry-based instruction,
which in turn helps develop students with the critical thinking skills to compete in a 21
st
century
global economy. Yet, researchers ask educators to consider what inquiry is, citing evidence that
not all inquiry is the same and produces the same result. Furthermore, scholars caution educators
to be wary of equating scientific process with scientific knowledge (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark,
2006). In other words, while inquiry-based scientific instruction may develop the skills and
processes of science, it does not necessarily equate to scientific content knowledge. This point
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 15

should be heeded especially in the era of NCLB, which calls for a high degree of student content
knowledge based on state standards.
In an era that calls for students to be both equipped to think critically and compete in a
21
st
century world as well as have the necessary content knowledge in a standards-driven climate
of accountability, a balance must be established. Perhaps in order to find a balance for the
student who is both knowledgeable in scientific process as well as content, educators must find a
comparable balance in their instruction. Educators should avoid the extremes of pure direct
instruction and the other extreme of pure discovery instruction. Such removal of opposing poles
leaves instructional methods that incorporate both opportunities for teacher guidance and student
inquiry. Under the framework of Abrams, the removal of the extremes of verification and open
instruction leaves structured or guided inquiry.
This dissertation aims to contribute to the claim substantiated by Kirschner, et al. and
Mayer that guided inquiry instruction is effective in science instruction. The purpose of this
study is to conduct a largely quantitative analysis of the Toyota grant-funded Neighborhood
Academic Initiative STEM (NAI-STEM) professional development program. This professional
development is specifically aimed at incorporating guided inquiry and its effect on student
science achievement. Results obtained from pre- and post-test scores and both quantitative and
qualitative assessments of participating teacher feedback prior to the professional development
as well as after may lead to a determination of whether guided inquiry instruction is effective in
increasing student achievement in science content.
Research Questions
1. What impact does the NAI-STEM professional development program have on teacher
perceptions of inquiry-based science learning? Specifically, what are teacher impressions
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 16

of USC’s NAI-STEM program which integrates a reform-oriented professional
development design with web-based collaboration that is both synchronous and
asynchronous?
2. What change has resulted from the NAI-STEM professional development program on the
self-efficacy levels of teachers in their ability to successfully integrate a guided inquiry-
based instructional model into their classroom?
3. How can teachers apply their knowledge acquired by the NAI-STEM program to
successfully design and implement a guided inquiry-based instructional lesson plan?
4. Does a guided inquiry approach to science instruction advocated by the NAI-STEM
program lead to an increase in student achievement in science content standards?
Importance of the Study
At the heart of this study is the effectiveness of inquiry-based instruction on student
achievement. By looking at student assessments before and after the implementation of an
inquiry-based instructional design, this study can provide further evidence substantiating the
argument for incorporating inquiry in the science classroom. Furthermore, there are elements
within this particular study that can have implications for further studies as well. In order to
implement an inquiry-based instructional design to the four schools, professional development
will be administered using a reform-oriented approach rather than traditional methods of teacher
education. Moreover, this particular professional development design will utilize both
synchronous and asynchronous online professional development methods. The effectiveness of
such professional development philosophies and tools may provide evidence supporting its
application in other teacher education contexts outside of science education.
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 17

A much broader scope of this particular study is the use of its experimental design in
other contexts as a means of evaluating professional developments overall as well as other school
program implementations and reform policies on student achievement. In the current
educational climate that emphasizes higher degrees of accountability, analysis tools such as the
Value-Added Model (VAM) have been devised to evaluate the effectiveness of educators and
educational programs. The VAM is intended to take into account the various factors that may
contribute to the overall performance of students such as demographics and socioeconomic status
in order to equitably evaluate teacher and program effectiveness. Unfortunately, scholars caution
school officials in their buy-in of the Value-Added Model due to issues with its complexity
(Viadero, 2008; Martineau, 2010) and unreliability (Schochet & Chiang, 2011; Briggs & Weeks,
2011; Scherrer, 2011). A methodology that regresses achievement on an index of socioeconomic
status like the one prescribed for this study can possibly provide a viable alternative to the value-
added approach.
Definition of Terms
• Inquiry — The diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose
explanations based on evidence derived from their work
• STEM education — Acronym that pertains to education in the fields of study of science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics
• Inquiry-based instruction — Classroom activities or labs that involve the student in the
processes of asking scientific questions, collecting data, or interpreting results.
• Guided inquiry — Inquiry-based instruction where the teacher provides guidance or
direction at one or more of the three processes of inquiry (structured or guided inquiry)
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 18

• Open inquiry — Student-centered inquiry-based instruction where teacher does not
provide scaffolding at any of the three processes of inquiry (pure discovery learning,
project-based learning)
• Reform-orientation — Professional development practices that are non-traditional in its
integration within the school day and responsiveness to the needs of individual teachers
and how they learn. Reform activities may include teacher study groups, teacher
collaboratives or networks, committees, mentoring, internships, or resource centers.
• Synchronous — Refers to a classroom setting in which the teacher and learners interact in
real time. In an online context, synchronous learning occurs when the teacher and
student interact at the same time, but are located in different places
• Asynchronous — In contrast to synchronous learning, asynchronous learning occurs
where there is a lapse in real-time interaction. Prior to the advent of synchronous
learning platforms, online education was considered asynchronous due to the lack of
interaction between the instructor and learner. Instead, correspondence was achieved
through online mediums such as e-mail or discussion threads. Any interaction where
there is no real-time interaction is considered asynchronous.
• Online community of practice — A group of people in a professional environment who
come together to share experience and expertise. Within a community of practice,
educators are free to share ideas and support each other’s growth and development. As
an online community of practice, educators collaborate synchronously and
asynchronously using online tools and platforms.
• Value-Added Assessment — A method for measuring the effects of the system, school,
and teacher on the rate of student academic progress.
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 19

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of the NAI-STEM online
professional development program in implementing an inquiry-based science curriculum. In
order to provide a clearer picture of the philosophy behind the NAI-STEM program and the
subject of this study, a short review of literature has been compiled. This review is divided into
four major sections. The first section provides a brief introduction to inquiry-based instruction
and the 5E instructional model, the instructional strategy advocated by the NAI-STEM program.
The second section outlines some of the challenges that the standards-based curriculum presents
for inquiry-based instruction and a possible solution. Section three addresses the paradigm shift
in professional development, away from the more traditional professional development towards a
more progressive model. The final section describes developing theories behind online learning.
Inquiry-based instruction
Definition of Inquiry Dewey (1938, 1916) perhaps first introduced the cultivation of
critical thinking skills in education in his advocating of schools as environments to develop
democratic citizenship. In order for citizens to be active participants in their own society, they
must have the skills of inquiry in order to produce change within the context of a democratic
society. Schools should be places where students are encouraged to ask questions and cultivate
their problem solving skills. This is especially true for the science student in that inquiry is an
integral part of the scientific process. This cultivation of scientists through inquiry perhaps came
to the forefront of American educational policy during the space race of the 1950’s and 1960’s.
The impetus was the Sputnik launch in 1957, which in turn prompted the educational system in
the United States to focus on preparing the next generation of physicists and other scientists
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 20

through rigorous educational practices (Cochran-Smith & Fries, 2005). Since Sputnik, the
integration of inquiry has been a major point of emphasis in science education and particularly in
science teacher education. DeBoer (1991, p. 206) provides support for this assertion: “If a single
word had to be chosen to describe the goal of science education during the 30-year period that
began in the late 1950s, it would have to be inquiry.”
Such rhetoric on the emphasis of inquiry is reflective of current science teacher
education. Various entities within science education have continued to emphasize inquiry as a
key component in teaching strategy, as is evidenced by the National Science Education
Standards. According to the National Research Council (1996), “scientific inquiry is at the heart
of science and science learning” (p. 16) and “inquiry into authentic questions generated from
student experiences is the central strategy for teaching science” (p. 31). The National Science
Education Standards goes on to define scientific inquiry as “the diverse ways in which scientists
study the natural world and propose explanations based on evidence derived from their work” (p.
23).
Characteristics of inquiry Despite such proposed definitions of inquiry, there seems to
be some confusion on what the components of inquiry-based learning looks like (Abrams,
Southerland, & Evans, 2007). Schwab (1962) and Colburn (2000) provide an apt generalization,
focusing on inquiry as three processes: asking questions, collecting data, and interpreting those
data. Within this definition, there can be varying degrees of inquiry-based learning. In one end
of the continuum, inquiry can be student-directed, in which the learner engages in scientific
inquiry, asking their own scientific questions and collecting data and evidence to support or
refute their claims. At the other side is a teacher-directed approach, where the teacher provides
the questions, data that pertains to the questions, and the means in which to answer the posed
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 21

questions. Schwab’s research provided the basis for which Herron devised his levels of inquiry.
Such a working definition can encompass the many manifestations of inquiry-based learning,
including inductive teaching, problem solving, project-based learning, discovery learning, guided
discovery (DeBoer, 2002), as well as more recent reinterpretations such as problem based
learning, process-oriented guided inquiry learning, peer-led team learning, (Eberfein, et al.,
2008) and the 5E instructional model presented by the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study
(Bybee, et al., 2006).
Despite such diversity, there still lies common themes discussed throughout many of the
devised strategies and are attributed to their effectiveness. Constructivism, process-oriented, and
student-centered education (Anderson, 2002) have been largely associated with inquiry-based
learning and touted as the basis for many of the benefits of inquiry-based learning. Instead of a
more traditional didactic methodology in which the teacher divulges the content knowledge to
the students, the students themselves have the responsibility of learning content knowledge
through the answering of questions. Whether student-directed or teacher-directed, these
scientific questions provide the driving force for learning in an inquiry-oriented classroom.
Learners are actively involved in the process and are encouraged to construct content knowledge
in relation to their own prior scientific conceptions or even misconceptions.
A multitude of studies have been conducted which has studied the effectiveness of
inquiry-based learning strategies. One such study (Leonard, 1983) compared an inquiry-based
program devised by the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) to an established
commercial program in a college biology laboratory. Based on a posttest, the students who had
experienced an inquiry-based curriculum scored significantly higher than students who
experienced the more traditional program which typically consists of a lecture-based method
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 22

with low student interaction. Similar studies (Hall & McCurdy, 1990; Leonard, Cavana, &
Lowery, 1981) looked at the achievement at both the high school and college levels and found
similar results in that students who experienced inquiry-based learning conditions achieved
higher test scores on learned content. While results of other studies (Klahr & Nigam, 2004)
imply that inquiry-based instruction is ineffective, most studies concur with the aforementioned
studies, indicating that student learning through inquiry-based methods is greater or at least equal
to more traditional direct instruction.
5E instructional model A well-established inquiry-based instructional model is the
aforementioned 5E instructional model, first devised by the Biological Sciences Curriculum
Study (Bybee, et al., 2006). For over twenty years, the 5E instructional model has been the
foundation for tens of thousands of lesson plans, curriculum materials, teacher education
programs, professional development programs, and resources in the K-12 and college levels.
Consequentially, the 5E approach is taught and recommended in both the science teacher
education and professional development programs at USC and therefore the subject of this study.
The instructional model devised by Bybee is based largely on a constructivist approach to
teaching and learning: “Constructivism is a dynamic and interactive model of how humans
learn” (1997, p. 176). The 5E model is predicated on the assumption that it should be common
practice for teachers to utilize strategies that enable students to take an active role in their own
learning or construction of knowledge. The 5E instructional model consists of a five phase
learning cycle: Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, and Evaluate.
The Engage phase of the model encompasses specific teacher practices related to the
ways in which a teacher involves students in learning the content and concepts of a unit of study
through, among other strategies, the use of scientifically oriented questions. If the teacher asks
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 23

students what they know or observe about a phenomenon or event related to the unit at the start
of the study, students connect the event or topic observed with “what they already know, (which)
creates dissonance with their own ideas, and/or motivates them to learn more” (National
Research Council, 2000, p. 35). Teachers in these classrooms engage students with activities
such as using a KWL chart, proposing probing questions, or conducting brainstorming sessions
on the topic under study, eliciting responses that uncover what students know or think about the
topic (Trowbridge & Bybee, 1990).
The second phase, Explore, is characterized by activities that provide students with
opportunities to investigate a unit-related problem traditionally through hands-on experiences
that culminate in the formulation and testing of a hypothesis, problem-solving, and the creation
of explanations for observed phenomena (National Research Council, 2000, p. 35). This
classroom is characterized by teacher encouragement for students to collaborate without
providing little or no direct instruction, in effect acting as a consultant rather than an authority on
the subject. The teacher observes and facilitates student interactions, asking probing questions or
redirecting investigations if necessary (Trowbridge & Bybee, 1990).
The third phase, Explain, represents an opportunity for students to analyze and interpret
the data to synthesize ideas, build models, and clarify concepts. This phase also provides
opportunities for teachers to directly introduce a concept, process, or skill, therefore guiding
students toward a deeper understanding of the concepts. Indicators of a classroom characterized
by explanation include when the teacher asks students to give explanation in their own words,
including clarifications and justifications for their thinking. At this point, the teacher might also
present more formal definitions, directions, labels and/or explanations for students (Trowbridge
& Bybee, 1990).
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 24

The fourth phase, Elaborate, builds on information acquired from the Explain phase. In
this phase, students “extend their new understanding and abilities and apply what they have
learned in new situation” (National Research Council, 2000, p. 35). Instructional strategies that
promote elaboration include those used during the explanation stage where the teacher serves to
guide or re-direct student thinking. Teachers expect students to use formal labels and definitions
learned in class during the explanation stage. The teacher reminds students of alternative
explanations, encouraging them to apply and extend new concepts and skills in new situations
(Bybee, 1997).
The final phase of the 5E model is the Evaluation phase. While more informal
evaluations should be embedded throughout the entire model, the Evaluation phase represents a
formal evaluation at the end of the 5E cycle. In a classroom characterized by evaluation,
students and their teachers review and assess that which they have learned in light of other
explanations and how it was learned (National Research Council, 2000, p. 35). As teachers
evaluate students learning, they observe students applying new concepts and skills, assess their
knowledge and skills and look for evidence that students have changed their behavior or thinking
as a result of their new learning. Additional indicators of this phase of inquiry-based instruction
include teachers providing formative feedback to students to enhance student thinking and skills
and, students evaluating their own performance, learning and group process skills (Trowbridge &
Bybee, 1990).
Standards-based instruction
The effects of standards-based curriculum Despite seemingly strong support for
inquiry-based learning from the science education community and studies that substantiate its
effectiveness, its implementation in schools has been superseded by the push of the standards-
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 25

based curriculum under No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Many in the education field refer to the
report A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) as the impetus
for the standards-based movement. The growing concerns over the educational preparation of
American students gained momentum and eventually culminated in the establishment of
curriculum standards and the evaluations needed to assess student learning of curriculum
standards.
With the establishment of a standards-based curriculum under NCLB and the consequent
accountability measures needed to assess student learning of standards, the educational field has
responded with mixed results. One of the more prominent research efforts to assess the effects
of the standards-based movement was conducted by the Mid-continent Research for Education
and Learning (McREL). One such report published by McREL analyzed a collection of studies
focused on standards-based curriculum, instruction, and assessment and its effects (Lauer, Snow,
Martin-Glenn, VanBuhler, Stoutemeyer, & Snow-Renner, 2005). The study concluded that the
implementation of a standards-based curriculum can lead to higher student achievement as well
as influence teachers to adopt new instructional strategies to better address the student learning
of content standards. In this respect, standards-based education has been shown to improve
teaching and student learning.
Yet despite such findings, the report cautions that such improvement depends in large
part on how standards-based policies are both perceived and therefore implemented by teachers.
The report also concluded that standards-based assessments influence both the content and
pedagogy of classroom instruction. This influence on content and pedagogy due to high-stakes
testing has manifested itself in schools curtailing instruction to put more emphasis on these tests.
This is especially true for urban setting where at-risk students may experience more didactic
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 26

methods of instruction rather than more reform-oriented instruction observed with more
advantaged students (Lauer, Snow, Martin-Glenn, VanBuhler, Stoutemeyer, & Snow-Renner,
2005).
One example of this is a decreasing emphasis on science and social studies juxtaposed to
a stronger emphasis on the language arts and math, the two subjects highly emphasized on the
basic skills testing requirement under NCLB (Kaniuka, 2009). A report by the Center for
Education Policy (McMurrer, 2007) adds to the argument, stating that curriculum reforms due to
the emergence of these state-mandated accountability measures have caused significant changes
with regard to instructional time. 62 percent of the surveyed school districts increased their
instructional time for reading and math. Similarly, 44 percent of the districts reduced time for
non-tested subject areas such as the arts and music. Overall, the surveyed districts reported a
greater emphasis on test taking skills and tested content.
Not only has instructional time been curtailed to highlight the tested subjects like math
and reading, instruction has also been shaped to focus merely on preparation for the test
(Barkesdale-Ladd & Thomas, 2000; Hamilton, Stecher, & Klein, 2002; Passman, 2001). The
“teaching to the test” approach has become more commonplace as teachers have adopted
strategies that are more focused on raising test scores than fostering student understanding
(Pringle & Carrier Martin, 2005; Shaver, Cuevas, Lee, & Avalos, 2007). Instead of fostering
higher-order thinking skills condusive to learning, teachers have been relegated to drill and
practice pedagogies that are perceived to better prepare students for the standardized tests. This
is especially true in high-minority classrooms, in which a focusing on drilling the basic concepts
of content instead of focusing on the fostering of higher-order thinking skills is a more common
occurence due to the magnified effects of funding and sanctions tied to standardized test results
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 27

(McNeil & Valanzuela, 2001). These represent just a few of the research studies that critique the
seemingly counterproductive effects of the standards-based curriculum and associated
accountability measures under NCLB.
Addressing the inquiry and standards dichotomy With the push for inquiry-based
education as early as the nineteenth century juxtaposed to the emergence of the educational
climate of accountability under NCLB at the start of the twenty-first century, the question
remains if the two can coexist. While there are many points of contention between inquiry-based
learning and standards-based learning, this paper proposes two major points that must be
addressed. The point of contention is what constitutes content knowledge. If rephrased, the first
question to address is, “what should students learn?” From the perspective of standards-based
instruction, knowledge to be learned is prescribed by experts in the field (DeBoer, 2002) and
mandated by governing bodies (Schoen & Fusarelli, 2008). These content standards are believed
to be basic knowledge that all students should know in order to be scientifically literate and
function in science-related issues in society. As such, they must be assessed in order to ensure
that all learners show proficiency in these skills or knowledge through the use of standardized
tests at the end of the school year. This prescribed set of basic knowledge is problematic for the
inquiry-based approach depending on the degree of inquiry. A student-centered inquiry
approach to knowledge acquisition implies a prerequisite of freedom to ask their own questions
and explore and reflect upon their developed scientific understandings. Furthermore, student-
centered inquiry is a time consuming process (DeBoer, 2002) in which students need time in
order to formulate scientific questions and acquire evidence to explore such questions. In this
respect, it is difficult one foster fully student-centered inquiry and the exploration of knowledge
in an environment where the learning outcomes and the time to do so are already prescribed.
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 28

A second point of contention is the instructional pedagogy utilized in order to acquire
knowledge. If rephrased, the second question to address is, “how should students learn?” or
rather, “what instructional strategies should be utilized in order for students to learn?” As
alluded to earlier, in the current standards-based environment, many teachers have relegated to
more traditional forms of knowledge acquisition. With so many prescribed standards to cover in
a span of a single school year, teachers have focused on test taking strategies and presenting
essential content knowledge through didactic methods such as lectures. Paradoxically, this
methodology runs contrary to what many researchers say about effective schools (Schoen &
Fusarelli, 2008). For example, a ten-year study of school effectiveness by Teddlie and
Stringfield (1993) found that less effective schools tended to focus more on test-taking skills,
while more effective school concentrated on strategies to improve the teaching and learning
process. Included among the list of effective teaching and learning processes is inquiry-based
instruction, promoted by science educational reform entities such as the American Association
for the Advancement of Science (2000), and ironically, the National Research Council (1996),
the same entity responsible for presenting the national science content standards. Such reform
documents published by both the AAAS and NRC indicate that teachers should spend less time
in didactic instructional forms such as lectures and more time using inquiry-based instructional
strategies in problem-solving contexts (Gess-Newsome, Southerland, Johnston, & Woodbury,
2003).
In the midst of the current education climate of accountability and mandates, educators
must discern what they can and cannot change for the improvement of student learning. When
framed under the two questions, “what should students learn?” and “how should students
learn?”, educators have the capacity to essentially change one but not the other. Educators are
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 29

not able to change the “what,” at least in the near future. Content standards are set and mandated
through the use of accountability measures for students to know. Despite some research
suggesting that less standards is more beneficial for student learning (American Association for
the Advancement of Science, 1989), educators cannot change this at the level of the classroom.
What educators have control over are the instructional strategies utilized in order for students to
have a deeper understanding of the content standards already set. As suggested, teachers should
center their instructional methodologies on inquiry-based strategies.
Amidst the backdrop of the multitude of content standards that must be addressed,
educators must find a balance that allows for inquiry as well as being able to address all the
content standards. It is suggested that educators stay away from both extremes of the dichotomy.
On one extreme, in order for educators to achieve higher test scores, they ironically should not
focus on the test. Emphasis should not be placed on ineffective strategies such as test taking
skills and didactic traditional methods such as lectures and other presentations of facts. On the
other extreme, teachers may be forced to decrease the amount of opportunities for fully student-
centered inquiry due to its time consuming and self-directed process. As DeBoer notes, “What is
clear is that highly specified content standards inevitably come into conflict with more general
goals of science education including those that are associated with student-centered inquiry
learning. If most of a teacher’s time is spent developing student understanding of a set body of
knowledge, then other more general goals cannot be adequately addressed” (2002, p. 414).
Educators are therefore encouraged to incorporate inquiry as much as possible, yet most inquiry
opportunities should be teacher structured or guided in order to steer student learning towards the
content standards that must be addressed. While there is an ample amount of literature on the
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 30

subject of inquiry, what lacks is a more focused research effort specifically on the
implementation of guided inquiry in the current educational climate.
Professional Development
Deficiencies of traditional professional development If guided inquiry-based
instruction provides an effective means of mitigating the push for inquiry-based instruction
juxtaposed to the educational climate of NCLB, then the next challenge presented is finding the
most effective implementation of guided inquiry-based instruction in classrooms. From one
perspective, the educational reforms brought about by NCLB resulted in the development of
more rigorous teaching standards and reforms in teacher education due to the requirement that
schools employ more “highly qualified teachers.” The mandates under NCLB echoed what many
researchers had already believed—that an increase in student achievement in schools is directly
related to improving teaching by bridging the gap between standards-based reform and teacher
training (Elmore, 2002; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Kwang, 2001; Guskey, 2002;
Shaha, V., O'Donnell, & Brown, 2004). Among the reforms in teacher education were the
emergence of teacher education models that provided more extended study of content disciplines
combined with more rigorous clinical training in schools. (National Commission on Teaching
and America's Future, 1996). One to two year post-graduate programs were offered as well as
five-year undergraduate teacher education programs. Stronger partnerships between K-12
schools and universities emerged, some resulting in professional development schools similar to
hospital schools where the link between theory and practice was emphasized.
Professional development served as another manifestation of the push for better trained
professionals and consequently better performing students. Legislation under NCLB aimed to
look more critically at the quality of professional development and ask the question that many
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 31

researchers have asked before—whether professional development is effective and yields any
improvement on student achievement. Traditionally, school administrators and other leaders
look toward professional development as a means to implement instructional strategies in order
to improve standardized test scores and other accountability measurements of school success
(Smylie, 1996; Spillane & Thompson, 1997).
Despite such emphasis on the development of high quality teachers, much professional
development administered in school districts consists primarily of “traditional” single-day or
short sequenced workshops (Downes, et al., 2001; McRae, et al., 2001) which focused on
implementing management systems, testing mandates, or curriculum packages which sought to
“teacher-proof” student learning (Darling-Hammond, 1998). Outside entities were brought into
schools, touting their strategies, materials, or packages as effective for student achievement.
Most professional development practices became onetime deals—“blow in, blow up, blow out”
sessions in which a strategy was presented and the presenter then left, leaving no support for
implemenation or follow-up. Such brief workshops have been largely ineffective in their impact
of teacher practice and student learning (Hawley & Valli, 1999; Brooks-Young, 2001; Downes,
et al., 2001; McRae, et al., 2001). This is especially true at urban settings as Darling-Hammond
(2005) points out. She argues that despite innovations in teacher education, such systemic
reforms that would make these resources and opportunities available to all teachers and students
have yet to take place. In contrast, teacher shortages in urban settings have led to lowered
standards for new teachers into the teaching profession. This, compounded with the prevailng
traditional professional development practices have been ineffectual in preparing teachers, giving
them few opportunities to enhance their knowledge and skills throughout their careers.
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 32

One reaction to the lack of lasting change due to traditional professional development
models is a rethinking by scholars as to what constitutes effective professional development.
Scholars looked abroad to investigate the relationship between professional development and
high academic achievement to determine what factors contribute to effective professional
development. Many reforms in professional development stemmed from an analysis of countries
with higher performing students and what factors contributed to such peak performance. One
such analysis of the 1995 Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) which
compared student achievement in countries around the world found that the achievment levels of
student in the United States were significantly lower than students in high-achieving countries in
Asia (Singapore, Korea, Japan, Hong Kong) and Europe (Belgium, Czech Republic, Slovak
Republic, Switzerland, France, Hungary Russian Federation, and Ireland) (Tabernik, 2010).
Analysis of the TIMSS showed that teacher training in the United States differed greatly than in
top-performing countries in both depth and breadth of pedagogy.
When compared with high-achieving countries around the world, the U.S. appears to be
significantly behind in providing certain kinds of professional learning opportunities.
The differences are especially marked with respect to observational visits to other
classrooms and schools, collaborative action research, and regularly scheduled
collaboration among teachers on issues of instruction (Wei, Darling-Hammond, Andree,
Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009, p. 39)

Stigler and Stevenson (1991) substantiate this claim, noting that in Asian countries like Japan,
Taiwan have well crafted lessons because there is a “systematic effort to pass on the accumulated
wisdom of teaching practice to each new generation of teachers and to keep perfecting that
practice by providing teachers the opportunities to contiually learn from each other (p. 46)” Top-
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 33

performing countries not only dedicate more time to collaboration and professional development,
but resources as well. Darling-Hammond demonstrates this, citing that while top-performing
industrialized countries allocate about 75 percent of education resources and 60 to 80 percent of
their staff to classroom teachers, the United States only dedicates 52 percent of education dollars
into the classroom and 43 percent of education staff members as classroom teachers (2005). As
research on top-performing countries show, high-quality professional development can directly
be linked to student achievement when adequate time and attention is dedicated to its
development. High-quality professional development helps to increase teachers’ content
knowledge, understading of pedagogical knowledge, and effectiveness over time. Done
correctly, professional development helps in the reculturing of the teacher profession, motivating
teachers to reconsider what effective teaching is and therefore increase student learning (Fullan,
2002; Stigler & Hiebert, 1999).
Characteristics of high-quality professional development When done correctly,
professional development can produce positive results in teacher change and student
achievement as evidenced by top-performing countries abroad. The next challenge is to
determine what factors constitute high-quality professional development, or put simply: what
does professional development “done correctly” mean? Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin
(1995) provide one of the more apt summarizations of high-quality professional development,
stating that professional development must have a stronger sense of connectivity, both between
the participating educators and between the presented instructional strategies and the educators’
diverse school settings. They assert that effective professional development share a number of
characteristics:
• It must engage teachers in concrete tasks of teaching, assessment, observation, and
reflection that illuminate the processes of learning and development.
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 34

• It must be grounded in inquiry, reflection, and experimentation that are participant-
driven.
• It must be collaborative, involving a sharing of knowledge among educators and a focus
on teachers’ communities of practice rather than on individual teachers.
• It must be connected to and derived from teachers’ work with their students.
• It must be sustained, ongoing, intensive, an supported by modeling, coaching, and the
collective solving of specific problems of practice.
• It must be connected to other aspects of school change (p. 598)

In conjunction with the educational practices in Asian countries and other top-performing
countries, professional development should be a largely collaborative process in which educators
and professional developers alike are able to engage in the processes of collaboration, inquiry,
and reflection as a community of practice rather than through didactic methods of lecture-based
instruction and package distribution. Furthermore, educators must not only have the opportunity
to build meaning of presented strategies with the professional developer, but also build meaning
within the context of their individual classrooms. Not only must educators see integration of
theory into practice in presented strategies (Miller & Silvernail, 1994), but also its practical
transfer in the context of educators’ own classrooms and students. For this to occur, effective
professional development must have sustained support that lasts beyond a day-long workshop or
seminar.
Many of these same conditions and practices of effective professional development was
also supported by studies (Garet, et al., 2001; Penuel, et al., 2007) examining how the structural
components of professional development of math and science programs led to changes in
teachers’ knowledge and practice. The researchers found evidence supporting the value of a
number of structural components of professional development—among them: reform orientation,
duration, the role of colleagues, and active learning.
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 35

In accordance with Garet et al.’s definition of reform orientation, activities may include
being mentored or coached, participating in a committee or study group, or engaging in an
internship. Such practices reflect a growing consensus (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin,
1995; Little, 1993) that professional development should be more collective in its process rather
than didactic methods of traditional workshops and lectures where little in-depth engagement
occurs.
Secondly, duration played a significant role in effective professional development.
Penuel et al. (2007) agree that traditional professional development is short in duration and offer
limited follow-up opportunities for support and reflection. Others concur, stating that longer
professional development allows for more opportunities of multiple cycles of presentation,
assimilation, and reflection of pedagogical knowledge and integration into practice (Blumenfeld,
Soloway, Marx, Guzdial, & Palincsar, 1991; Brown, 2004). This can be especially true for the
implementation of more inquiry-based instruction in science classrooms. A transformation from
a more traditional teacher-centered classroom into one that fosters a more “investigative culture”
requires more time for implementation and systemic change (Supovitz & Turner, 2000).
Professional development with longer duration allows for closer coordination with classroom
teachers on creating more reform-oriented professional development activities that react to the
needs of the students.
A redefinition on the role of colleagues is also a significant structural component of
effective professional development. Garet et al.’s (2001) refers to this structural component as
“collective participation” in which teachers participate in professional development with
colleagues from their school and district. As alluded to earlier, collective participation is a
primary component of reform-oriented professional development where teacher collaboration
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 36

becomes a more centralized focus of professional development and a stronger emphasis is placed
on the teacher’s professional communities (Desimone, 2002). Researchers suggest that
providing opportunities for teacher collaboration is more effective in promoting implementation
because new reforms and strategies have more authority when embraced by peers (Bryk &
Schneider, 2002). Furthermore, collective participation in professional development has been
found to build relational trust between teachers and school leaders which can pay larger
dividends when making tough decisions as it pertains to improving student outcomes and other
school-related decisions (Frank, Zhao, & Borman, 2004). With increased trust among
educational professionals comes a heightened sense of comfortability to share ideas, more focus
and motivation to work through problems of practice, and a building of social capital that can be
utilized for further support beyond the formal professional development session.
For inquiry-based science instruction to be successful, scholars agree that science
teachers should be given opportunities to practice inquiry through professional development or
other methods to support student inquiry in their classrooms. Research studies have shown that
more hands-on, active learning opportunities in which teachers engage in inquiry processes have
been linked with positive student-achievement outcomes for those teachers (Brown &
Campione, 1996; Fishman & Krajcik, 2003). Some of the criticism of one-time professional
development is that teachers often do not grasp the principles and concepts behind presented
instructional reforms and strategies. As a result, even if teachers are willing to implement those
strategies in their classrooms, they are done in a manner inconsistent with the intended design.
This lack of understanding may cause the strategies to be ineffective in improving student
outcomes (Lieberman & Miller, 2001; Singer, et al., 2000; Wiggins & McTighe, 1998) or may
even be detrimental to the learning process (Brown & Campione, 1996). Providing professional
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 37

development in which teachers are more actively involved—planning, enacting, and revising—
deepens their understanding of the principles and concepts behind effective curriculum units,
lesson design, and with their own overall teaching practices (Spillane, 1999, 2004).
Online professional development The production of high-quality professional
development presents a unique situation in that the structures and components of professional
development can also prove to be major obstacles. While researchers suggest that adults work
more effectively when placed in a more collaborative environment (Wenger & Snyder, 2000)
and are given more time to solve problems of practice (Blumenfeld, Soloway, Marx, Guzdial, &
Palincsar, 1991; Brown, 2004), both the space needed to collaborate and the time required to
exchange ideas and reflect on practices may prove elusive for educators. The high demands of
work and family life for educators coupled with the inconveniences of coordinating and
attending meetings with such demanding schedules is problematic. Online professional
development offers a solution that can alleviate many of the issues of space and time for
effective professional development. The benefits of professional development delivered online
include convenience, immediate application, and economic advantages (Tinker, 2003).
Educators are able to participate in professional development that can be delivered at any time
and any place. Unfortunately, there is a deficiency of studies which can establish a solid
theoretical background in which to provide direction for the development of effective online
learning platform. As a result, many of the online professional development opportunities have
been predominantly based on more linear, behavioristic models of teaching in the same fashion
as its traditional in-person counterparts (Vrasidas, 2000; Seagrave & Holt, 2004).
A few studies provide insight on the potential of online professional development when
structured under the same theoretical framework as reform-oriented in-person professional
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 38

development. Vavasseur and MacGregor (2008) provide such an example, utilizing a mixed
methods approach to analyze two middle schools and their use of online professional
development to integrate the use of technology in the classroom. As research suggests that
teacher collaboration is a vital component of effective professional development, Vavasseur and
MacGregor focused on the use of the online medium to development community of practice. A
community of practice, as cited by Wenger and Snyder (2000) is a term that describes a group of
people in a professional environment who come together to share experience and expertise. By
developing a community of practice, educators are free to share ideas and support each other’s
growth and development. Within such communities, the boundaries between developing skills
as educational learners versus developing new identities as educational leaders becomes skewed.
Both can develop as participants in a community of practice interact, focusing on real-time
problems of practice.
Vavasseur and MacGregor used this framework to select two middle schools with similar
demographics and with a disposition to professional development that fell in line with reform-
oriented design of developing communities of practice. Quantitative data were collected from
teacher efficacy surveys as well as teacher performance on the culminating project, a technology-
enhanced unit plan. Qualitative data were derived from focus group interviews with the teachers
as well as online threaded discussions. Both quantitative and qualitative data suggested that
teachers gained competency with technology use as a result of the professional development and
their participation in the online communities of practice. Teachers reported development of
technological skills as well as implementation of the new instructional strategies in their
classrooms. In conjunction with teacher competency, the study showed that teachers gained a
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 39

heightened sense of self-efficacy as it pertains to the use of computers and other technology tolls
in the classroom.
In a another study, Vrasidas and Zembylas (2004) applied a similar theoretical
framework for the professional development of teachers to analyze the effectiveness of two e-
learning projects, Teaching and Learning (TLO) and STAR-online. From a series of studies that
spanned ten years that examined the difficulties and opportunities presented in online learning
and teaching, Vrasidas and Zembylas compiled a theoretical framework that draws upon three
interrelated themes: constructivism, situated and distributed cognition, and communities of
practice. Under the constructivist perspective, knowledge does not exist independent of the
learner; in other words, knowledge is constructed. Vrasidas and Zymbylas cite two types of
constructivism: personal constructivism, in which knowledge is constructed in the head of the
individual learner while he or she reorganized personal experience and cognitive structures, and
social constructivism, in which knowledge is constructed through social interactions. Under the
framework of situated and distributed cognition, learning and knowledge acquisition is a process
that takes place in a participation framework. Learner situate themselves in real life situations
and act as experts to problem solve. In short, learning is a process in which knowledge is
constructed in a social context or setting. As such, knowledge is shared or distributed among
participants and their physical, socio-political, and historical environments. Finally, the
community of practice framework suggests that a space in which colleagues are able to
collaborate develops a shared commitment for a particular practice and an environment of
knowledge sharing and collegial support. This can be particularly beneficial for spaces
established online, where such communities can be developed and maintained without some of
the constraints of time and space.
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 40

With a theoretical framework based on constructivism, situated-distributed cognition, and
community of practice, the researchers analyzed two e-learning projects, Teaching and Learning
Online (TLO) and STAR-online. TLO was a projected designed to prepare and train teachers in
the designing, developing, teaching, and evaluating of online courses. In this ten-week course,
high school teachers, higher education faculty, and other educators participate in online readings,
web-based resources, interactive and collaborative activites, and peer reviews to develop the
knowledge and skills needed to develop an online course. STAR-online is a professional
development and continuing education model for teachers also based on the aforementioned
theoretical framework. Teachers have access to mentors, colleagues, and web-based resources.
A virtual teaching and learning community (VTLC) system provides interactive, self-paced and
collaborative development for teachers in their knowledge and skill development of educational
technology. Major findings from the analysis of both programs include an increased sense of
responsibility by the participants due to the collaborative nature of the programs and a resulting
sense of community in which participants developed a joint vision, control, and ownership of the
community and its goals.
Online learning theory
Emerging online learning theory Compared to traditional learning theories that have
been developed and studied at length, online learning theory is still an emerging field. While the
breadth of knowledge on is still in its relative infancy, studies like the ones conducted by
Vavasseur and MacGregor as well as Vrasidas and Zymbylas point toward a developing theory
of online learning. While they do not speak directly of a learning theory specific to an online
context, the work of Ally (2007), Knowles (1996), and Northroup (2001) provide a framework in
which to develop such a theory of online learning.
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 41

Traditional learning theories such as behaviorism, cognitive learning, and constructivism
have long been established among education scholars and professionals. Yet, few have ventured
into its application in an web-based context. Online education is quite similar in structure to
more traditional education mediums such as the teacher-student classroom setting in that there is
some form of knowledge transfer and often, some form of student interaction (Northroup, 2001).
In his study of the characteristics and materials of effective online instruction, Ally (2007)
contends that online learning theory lies where the learning theories of behaviorism, cognitive
learning theory, and constructivism intersect. He states, “the development of effective online
learning materials should be based on proven and sound learning theories” (p. 6). Ally suggests
the most prominent of the three theories is constructivism, asserting it can be found in many
online learning environments because it enables the student to be self-directed in their learning.
This claim is substantiated by the aforementioned studies of Vavasseur and MacGregor (2008)
and Vrasidas and Zymbylas (2004) in their support of an online “community of practice”
approach. Gonsalves, Kawabata, Nakagawa, Ishikawa, & Itoh (2005) also substantiate this
assertion, stating, “Real in-depth learning takes plan in a collaborative setting, where students
take the lead in teaching one another in the presence of the instructor rather than being in a
position of receiving passively from an instructor” (p. 13).
The prominence of constructivism in online learning becomes more clear when
considering the context in which it arises; that is, settings such as professional developments or
other training setting in which adults are the students and not school-age children. The theory
that discusses how adults learn is called andragogy, as opposed to pedagogy, which pertains to
child learning theory. While andragogy has been presented as early as the 19
th
century, it has not
gained notoriety until Malcom Knowles first published his article, “Andragogy, Not Pedagogy”
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 42

in 1968 (Reischmann, 2004) Since then, Knowles has continued to study about andragogy as
adult learning theory. Knowles (1996) contends that andragogy is different from pedagogy in
that adults need to be self-directed. Knowles goes further to describe andragogy as six distinct
characteristics required for adults to learn:
1. Adults must know why they are learning something
2. Adults require they be self-directing
3. Adults preferred learning style uses former experiences to enrich future learning
experiences
4. Adults learn best when they choose voluntarily to make a commitment to learn
5. Adults enter into learning experiences with a task-oriented perspective
6. Adults are motivated to learn both extrinsically and intrinsically
Here lies the intersection of constructivism with andragogy as many aspects of both theories
overlap. Within both theories is a need for both the autonomy and active participation of the
learner. The learner must take ownership for their learning and become actively engaged in the
learning process. Furthermore, both theories utilize prior knowledge to enrich the learning
process. Learners use former life experiences to contextualize the current learning. Finally,
learners must have purpose in what they are learning. Learners must understand how this
learning experience will help them solve a problem or complete a future task.
Synchronous online learning This constructivist framework is especially applicable in
learning environments in which the online professional development is conducted
synchronously. In a traditional classroom setting, learning is considered synchronous because
the teacher and learner interact in real time. In contrast, learning that occurs outside the
classroom in which no direct interaction occurs, such as studying or reading, is considered
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 43

asynchronous. In an online context, synchronous learning occurs when the teacher and student
interact at the same time, but are located in different places (Ally, 2007). For synchronous
learning online, tools such as web-based meeting platforms are utilized in which users can meet
and collaborate in a virtual classroom despite being at different physical locations. Adobe
Connect is an example of such a platform and is utilized by the NAI/STEM program and
therefore the subject of this study. Ally (2007) contends that synchronous learning is most
closely aligned with constructivist learning because students are able to interact and participate
in the learning outcomes. From the perspective of andragogy, this environment is conducive to
most adults because adults must participate in their learning (Knowles, 1996).
Asynchronous online learning In contrast, asynchronous learning occurs where there is
a lapse in real-time interaction. Prior to the advent of synchronous learning platforms, online
education was considered asynchronous due to the lack of interaction between the instructor and
learner. Instead, correspondence was achieved through online mediums such as e-mail or
discussion threads. Wikispaces, the online platform utilized by the NAI/STEM program for
collaborative lesson planning and discussion, is an example of this. A major benefit of
asynchronous learning is accessibility, as defined by Ally (2007), “in asynchronous online
learning, students can access the online materials at anytime, while synchronous learning allows
for real time interaction between students and instructor” (p. 5). Prior to synchronous learning,
online professional development and other learning opportunities emulated a didactic approach
of knowledge transfer due to no capabilities for real-time interaction. With the advent of
synchronous learning, the two learning environments provide for a more comprehensive
approach to online learning. From the synchronous perspective, adult learners have more
ownership over their learning experience due to more opportunities for collaboration. From the
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 44

asynchronous perspective, learners have the convenience and access to resources on their own
time. In essence, the development of online learning environments have mimiced the shift of
professional development from a more didactic approach to a more constructivist approach to
learning.
Conclusion
Within the past decade or so, the research suggests paradigm shifts in both science
education and professional development. While inquiry has seemed to be a major point of
emphasis, a resurgence of inquiry-based education has developed amidst the demands of higher
cognitive skills and standards performance. From the perspective of continuing teacher
education, both face-to-face and online professional development has shifted to a more
collaborative design which fosters a constructivist community of practice design as a more
effective model than the traditional one-time didactic approach. However, research is lacking in
more quantitative measurements which correlate the guided-inquiry approach in science
instruction to student academic growth and achievement. Furthermore, quantitative studies
which assesses the effectiveness of reform-oriented professional development models in relation
to student achievement are also lacking. In a similar fashion, while a theory of online education
is starting to emerge, there is still a need to conduct studies in this developing field. This study
aims to contribute to the deficient body of research by analyzing a professional development
program (NAI/STEM) that utilizes a synchronous and asynchronous online learning platforms
(Adobe Connect and Wikispaces) to foster inquiry-based instruction (5E model) in science
classrooms.
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 45

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
This study is intended to essentially determine the effectiveness of an inquiry-based
professional development program on student science achievement. While this study is a mixed
methods approach, it is largely a quantitative study in the analysis of teacher impressions of the
program, teacher self-efficacy, and student achievement. The qualitative aspect of this study
pertains to the analysis of teacher application of the guided inquiry-based instructional model,
and is designed as a means of triangulating teacher understanding of inquiry-based instruction
and student science achievement. There are four main questions that will be addressed in this
study:
Research Question #1: What impact does the NAI-STEM professional development
program have on teacher perceptions of inquiry-based science learning? Specifically, what are
teacher impressions of USC’s NAI-STEM program which integrates a reform-oriented
professional development design with web-based collaboration that is both synchronous and
asynchronous?
Research Question #2: What change has resulted from the NAI-STEM professional
development program on the self-efficacy levels of teachers in their ability to successfully
integrate a guided inquiry-based instructional model into their classroom?
Research Question #3: How can teachers apply their knowledge acquired by the NAI-
STEM program to successfully design and implement a guided inquiry-based instructional lesson
plan?
Research Question #4: Does a guided inquiry approach to science instruction advocated
by the NAI-STEM program lead to an increase in student achievement in science content
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 46

standards?
Design Summary
The design of this study is a summative evaluation based on Kirkpatrick’s four steps of
training evaluation. Donald Kirkpatrick proposed a framework for evaluating training
interventions based on his doctoral work in the early 1950’s. His proposal for evaluation design
was intended to assess not only the measure of the trainee’s reactions to the program and what
was learned, but also “the extent of their change in behavior after they returned to their jobs, and
any final results that were achieved by participants after they returned to work” (Kirkpatrick,
1996, p. 55). Developed in 1959, the Kirkpatrick Model is a widely used model for the
evaluation of learning and training, due in large part because of its practicality and simplicity.
Kirkpatrick’s four-level evaluation model is as follows:
1. Reaction – How well participant liked or accepted a training intervention
2. Learning – the principles, facts, and/or skills trainees acquire during training
3. Behavior – the acquired principles, facts and/or skills trainees apply on the job
4. Results – changes in business or outcomes due to the intervention
Over forty years after its inception, Kirkpatrick’s four levels model still serves as a
commonly used framework for training program evaluation (Alliger & Janak, 1989). In an
attempt to accurately assess the effectiveness of the NAI STEM professional development—
essentially a training program for science teachers—this study will also utilize Kirkpatrick’s
four-level framework for evaluation.
The first level of evaluation, reaction, is designed to determine whether or not the
participants of the professional development like and value the program. At this level, the intent
is to measure how program participants feel about various aspects of the program, similar to a
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 47

customer satisfaction survey or “smile sheet” for training programs. A key question to answer
through this level of evaluation is, “what does the learner think about the course?” (Plant, 1994).
Kirkpatrick contends that a correlation exists between a participant’s reaction to a program and
the amount of effort put into learning and implementation. Typical measures at this level include
but are not limited to relevance, importance, usefulness, appropriateness, intent to use, and
motivation (Phillips & Phillips, 2007).
For this particular study, surveys will be used to look at teacher’s reactions to the
concepts of inquiry-based instruction as well as a reform-oriented professional development
model which utilizes both online and live teacher support and collaboration. The measurement
tool for this first-level study is a close-ended survey that is designed to get a quantitative
measurement of teacher reactions. Questions are posed as teachers respond in a five-point scale
from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). This survey is a post only design and is
administered at the end of the professional development program. If the reaction from the
participants is largely positive, the results may indicate a motivation to persist in the professional
development program as well as its implementation in their own teaching practices.
The second level, learning, involves knowledge learned, skills improved, or attitudes
changed as a result of the training or intervention. The intent for this level of evaluation is to
answer the question, “What has the learner learned?” (Plant, 1994). For Kirkpatrick’s
framework, the assumption is that no change in behavior can occur until one of the three learning
objectives has been accomplished. Common measures assessed at this level may include skills,
knowledge, capacity, competencies, confidence, and contact (Phillips & Phillips, 2007). The
most common assessment at this level is a pre-test and post-test to determine any change in
learning.
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 48

For this particular study, learning will be assessed based on teachers’ self-efficacy levels,
that is, their perceived ability to create inquiry-based lessons and implement them in their own
classrooms. Quantitative surveys will again be administered using five point scales. Unlike the
first level survey, this survey is administered as pre-post design in order to determine the change
in teacher’s self-efficacy level. A positive change in the self-efficacy level of the teachers in
their ability to produce inquiry-based lessons is an indication that teachers learned what the NAI-
STEM professional development program intended.
The third level is behavior, and is designed to ascertain if the intervention has led to a
change in the behaviors of the participants. The intent of this level is to answer the question,
“Has the student applied the skill learned?” (Plant, 1994). Typical measures for this level
include looking at the extent of use, task completion, frequency of use, actions completed,
success with use, barriers with use, and enablers to use (Phillips & Phillips, 2007). The
suggested method for determining behavior change is the direct observation of the participant in
their workplace through interviews, focus groups, narratives, or checklists.
For this particular study, this level will assess if teachers are applying the concepts of the
professional development, therefore indicating a change in behavior. This level is assessed
through teacher observations and interviews that are designed to determine to what extent are
teachers using what they learned in this program. By using qualitative measures such as
conducting observations of teachers and open-ended interviews, this data will be used in
conjunction with the various quantitative measures as a means of triangulation. This mixed
methods approach provides a broader evaluation of the overall effectiveness of the professional
development program, helping to substantiate the quantitative data from the other three levels.
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 49

The fourth level encapsulates the bottom line of this study, which is to measure the extent
to which the learning initiative or program intervention has contributed to overall objectives,
priorities, or strategies. The overall intent of this level is “what benefit has the organization
derived?” (Plant, 1994). Typical measures analyzed at this level include changes in productivity,
quality, time, efficiency, and customer satisfaction (Phillips & Phillips, 2007). In an educational
context, this level focused on answering the question, “does this intervention result in student
learning gains?” It is at this level where this study will determine if the implementation of this
inquiry-based professional development program ultimately results in student science
achievement.
For this study, students are assessed based on ten-question unit quizzes at the beginning
and end of each mini-unit or module. This one-group pre-post design looks at the change in
student scores as an indication for student learning.
O X O
An analysis of the data, discussed in detail later in this chapter, will be used to determine
statistical significance between pre- and post- quiz. A positive change indicates student learning
gains and therefore suggests the effectiveness of the professional development program.
Participants and Setting
The participants for this study are primary the four teachers and approximately one
hundred and fifty high school students that participated in the biological science courses of the
NAI Saturday enrichment program. The NAI program has developed a partnership with two
high schools in the area, Foshay Learning Center and Manual Arts Senior High School, both part
of Los Angeles Unified School District. From those schools, teachers recommend students into
the NAI program. It is the students concurrently taking either biology or AP biology in their
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 50

respective schools that make up the participants in the NAI Saturday enrichment program and
therefore the participants in this study. The teachers that also participated in the study were
initially recruited by the NAI program and volunteered to be a part of the Saturday program.
Intervention
The intervention for this study is a professional development program centered on a
guided-inquiry instructional design. Teachers are introduced to the 5E instructional model and
are later asked to use that model to design and implement their own lessons. In the initial
meeting, teachers are first introduced to the 5E instructional model which structures its lessons in
a specific sequence (Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, Evaluate) designed to provide
opportunities for student inquiry. Teachers are then provided with model lessons structured
around the 5E design and are asked to implement the model lessons in the Saturday enrichment
science classes. Teachers are then asked to create their own 5E science lessons and continue to
implement those inquiry-based lessons in the Saturday classes.
To facilitate teacher learning, collaboration, and implementation, the professional
development has three major components: synchronous online meetings every other week,
asynchronous teacher collaboration, and live interaction during the Saturday sessions. A vast
majority of the professional development is administered online. A conceptual figure of the
program is displayed below:

ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 51

Figure 1: NAI-STEM Professional Development

During the synchronous meetings, teachers and facilitators meet using an online meeting
platform (Adobe Connect) to discuss various topics associated with the implementation of
inquiry in the classroom and lesson planning. Teachers meet as a whole group to observe
recorded video of themselves teaching and are given feedback from facilitators and other
teachers. Teachers can also be divided into subject-alike groups during these online meetings
where they can discuss the upcoming lessons and plan together.
In the asynchronous collaboration, teachers have access to an online learning
management system (Wikispaces) where they collaborate by creating posting lesson plans for the
subject-alike groups to see without the need to meet in-person. Other teachers have the
Asynchronous Collaboration
(Wikispaces)
• Lesson Plan Posting
• Editing of Lesson Plan
• Posting and viewing of
Observation Videos
In-Person Teaching
(Saturday Academy)
• Implementation of Lesson
Plan
• Recording of Observation
Videos
• Administering of Pre-Post
Test
Synchronous Meetings
(Adobe Connect)
• Presenting of Inquiry-Based
Strategies
• Teacher Discussion and
Reflection of Prior Lesson
• Teacher Collaboration of
Upcoming Lession
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 52

capabilities to post comments and questions about the lesson for further collaboration. The
Wikispaces platform can also be utilized to post recorded videos of teaching events where
teachers and facilitators can view and discuss at the synchronous meeting.
During live interaction, teachers put their collaborative efforts to use as lessons that were
developed lesson plans are implemented with students from the NAI Saturday Academy. A
facilitator is circulating during the Saturday sessions to administer quick observations, record
video of lessons and interactions within the classroom for later viewing and discussion, and
provide support for the teachers as they teach each lesson to the NAI students. At the start and
end of each teaching module, teachers administer the pre-post test to assess student learning.
Instrumentation and Procedures
Surveys At level one of this study, close-response surveys will be administered to the
participating teachers that are designed to assess their level of satisfaction with the overall
program. This survey is given at the end of the professional development program and provides
a preliminary picture of the effectiveness of the program based on the initial reactions of
participating teachers. A number of statements are posed and responses of agreement with the
statements will be based on a five-point scale, with 1 representing “strongly disagree” and 5
representing a “strongly agree” response. At the end of the close-response section, a few open-
response questions are asked which asks teachers to identify areas of strength, areas of weakness,
and any final comments.
Level two has a similar structure, in that another close-response survey will be utilized to
assess participating teachers’ level of learning and increase in self-efficacy as a result of the
professional development program. Unlike the level one survey, which is given at the end of the
program, this level two survey is given at the start and at the end of the program to assess any
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 53

changes in knowledge and self-efficacy. The survey is divided into two sections. The first
section assesses teachers’ level of self-efficacy in their effectiveness as a teacher. The second
section focuses more on teacher knowledge of the inquiry-based learning process and their self-
perceived ability to create and implement inquiry-based lessons as presented and advocated by
the NAI STEM program. Sample questions are shown below
Figure 2: Level Two Survey Sample Questions
Interviews At level three, a qualitative approach will be used in the form of teacher
interviews as a means of triangulating the data from the other three levels in the study.
Standardized open-ended interviews of the participating teachers are conducted at the end of the
professional development program. Questions from the interviews are designed to compare prior
experience with inquiry-based teaching to their experience and changes in their teaching as a
result of their participation in the program. The data from the interviews will be used in
conjunction with the various quantitative measures as a means of triangulation. This mixed
methods approach provides a broader evaluation of the overall effectiveness of the professional
development program, helping to substantiate the quantitative data from the other three levels.
an interview protocol was designed that is intended to provide insight on teacher’s thoughts and
Section 1: Assessing Teacher Self-Efficacy
1. I feel that I am making a significant educational difference in the lives of my
students.
2. I feel I can get through to even the most difficult and unmotivated student.
3. Children are so private and complex, I never know if I am getting through to
them.
Section 2: Assessing Teacher Knowledge of Inquiry
1. I am confident about my ability to create effective inquiry-based lessons that
can produce positive academic change in my students.
2. I feel that inquiry-based learning is an important component of an effective
science curriculum.
3. I can identify and explain the four different levels of inquiry.

ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 54

experiences with inquiry-based teaching prior to participating in the NAI-STEM program, as
well as their thoughts on their experiences and learning from the program. The interview
questions from the protocol is shown below:
Figure 3: Teacher Interview Protocol

Prior Experience and Opinion with (Inquiry-based) Teaching
1. Tell me about what classes you’re teaching this year.
2. Tell me about the professional development you’re doing around IBT. Could
you give an example?
3. What is your opinion of inquiry-based teaching (IBT)?
a. What advantages do you see with IBT?
b. What challenges do you see with IBT?
4. Was this new information for you? Have you done PD on IBT before?
5. …How does this PD compare to prior PD?
Experience and Learning from Professional Development Program
6. What have you learned about inquiry-based teaching changed as a result of
your participation with this program?
7. How has your teaching practice changed as a result of your participation with
this program? How?
a. What would a typical day in your science class look like? Describe an
average period or block. Think back before PD. What’s different?
b. How do you start the lesson? How do you make sure students are
interested?
8. What challenges do you find implementing IBT in your classroom?
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 55

Achievement Assessments Achievement will be assessed at level four as it pertains to
student gains in understanding of scientific concepts presented during the Saturday sessions. To
assess student achievement, an identical ten-question multiple-choice exam is given at the start
and end of each module. Each exam briefly assesses student understanding of the scientific
concepts presented at each module, both before the 5E lesson, and after. Questions are derived
from biology textbook test banks aligned with the California State Science Content Standards as
well as released CST questions. A few sample questions are provided below.
Figure 4: Sample Pre-Post Test Questions

1. Which pathway describes the formation of proteins at the ribosome?

a. mRNA is translated into protein by tRNA
b. tRNA is translated into protein by DNA
c. DNA is translated into protein by mRNA
d. tRNA
is
translated
into
protein
by
mRNA

2. In protein synthesis, tRNA is responsible for

a. copying a section of the DNA strand into mRNA.
b. packaging proteins for transport out of the cell.
c. transporting mRNA strands to the ribosome.
d. matching
amino
acids
with
the
correct
mRNA
sequence.

3. Which molecule is formed at the end of this process?

gene in DNAàmRNAàribosomeà???

a. nucleic acid
b. lipid
c. carbohydrate
d. protein

ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 56

Analysis
A statistical analysis will be conducted at levels 2 and 4 to determine if there is any
change from the pre- and post- surveys and assessments. A paired samples or dependent groups
T-test will be used to determine if the change in the pre/post means are statistically significant.
Such a design may prove problematic for the level two test, in which the experimental number is
small (n = 5), juxtaposed to the level four test, which may be a more telling figure on the
effectiveness of the intervention due to the larger experimental number (n = 150). Analysis of
the other quantitative measure is much simpler in structure. In contrast to the other two levels,
analysis of the level one instrument is conducted by simply calculating the mean values for each
survey question.
Juxtaposed to the other three levels, analysis of level three data is a much different
analysis due to the qualitative nature of this study rather than the quantitative nature of the other
three. Analysis at level three includes coding the interviews to determine common threads
among the teachers experiences and drawing excerpts from the interviews to substantiate any
learning gains found from both the teachers and the students as elucidated in the other three
levels.
Limitations
This particular study on the effectiveness of the NAI STEM intervention contains a
number of limitations with respect to statistical conclusion, internal, and external validity. As
mentioned earlier in this chapter, one of the larger threats to the validity of this study is with
statistical conclusion in that there is a lack of a substantial size of experimental participants to
determine a change as a result of the professional development intervention. While the number
of students is adequate for a reliable set of data for the level four study, the first three levels only
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 57

have the data from the five participating teachers. Such lack of participants may prove
problematic in providing reliable data in terms of determining participant gains in reaction,
learning, and behavior.
As with many studies that have pre-post designs, there are threats to both internal and
external validity. One of the major threats to internal validity in this particular study pertains to
the test measurements itself. Because studies at levels 2 and 4 both utilize a pre-post design,
identical measurements were used. Due to added exposure, the teacher participants at level two
and student participants at level four may score better at the second administration due to greater
familiarity with the test. Data analysis may prove inconclusive as it may indicate familiarity
rather than actual gains due to the intervention.
From an external validity standpoint, the intervention was conducted with two specific
participant groups: veteran science teachers and NAI students. Veteran teachers already assume
some level of expertise with teaching due to experience, and it is difficult to make the
assumption that this intervention will produce similar results in different populations such as
beginning teachers. In a similar fashion, the NAI students have been selected through both an
application and teacher recommendation process. Therefore, most of the student participants
represent that already display a relatively high degree of motivation for academic excellence.
Much like the teacher participants, the student participants represent a homogeneous population
that proves problematic if making the assertion that this intervention will produce similar results
in a more heterogeneous setting.

ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 58

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
The purpose of this chapter is to present the findings from the qualitative and quantitative
collection of data described in the previous chapter. The goal of this study was to assess the
effectiveness of an online professional development centered on inquiry-based science
instruction. The Kirkpatrick four-level model was used as the framework to establish the
following research questions:
Research Question #1: What impact does the NAI-STEM professional development
program have on teacher perceptions of inquiry-based science learning? Specifically, what are
teacher impressions of USC’s NAI-STEM program which integrates a reform-oriented
professional development design with web-based collaboration that is both synchronous and
asynchronous?
Research Question #2: What change has resulted from the NAI-STEM professional
development program on the self-efficacy levels of teachers in their ability to successfully
integrate a guided inquiry-based instructional model into their classroom?
Research Question #3: How can teachers apply their knowledge acquired by the NAI-
STEM program to successfully design and implement a guided inquiry-based instructional lesson
plan?
Research Question #4: Does a guided inquiry approach to science instruction advocated
by the NAI-STEM program lead to an increase in student achievement in science content
standards?
To answer these research questions, three forms of data were devised and examined: pre-
and post-surveys given to participating teachers assessing both reactions to the professional
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 59

development as well as self-efficacy levels, interviews and observations of participating teachers,
and pre- and post-assessments of science content by the participating students.
Participants
There were five biology teachers that participated in the professional development.
Three of the five teachers represent teachers from two of the high schools (Foshay and Manual
Arts High School) that have a partnership with the Neighborhood Academic Initiative (NAI) that
administers the professional development as well as the Saturday Academy in which it serves.
The other two participating teachers are outside the classroom. One is a program specialist for
the University of Southern California and the other is a recent graduate of the same university
with a major in marine biology. Despite both not teaching in a science classroom outside the
NAI program, both have extensive experience with science instruction at the upper secondary
age group.
The other major participants in this study are the participating students of the NAI
program. While the attendance varies for session to session, there are approximately 100
students participating in the biological science classes. These students are enrolled in the two
participating high schools and were nominated by their teachers to be a part of the NAI program.
The NAI program provides academic mentoring to participating students from middle school
through high school. As part of the NAI academic program, students participate in the Saturday
Academy approximately every two weeks that serves to provide academic enrichment to the
classes of English Language Arts, mathematics, and science.
Level One: Reaction
Exit Surveys The five participating teachers each took a close-ended survey at the end of
the professional development. In accordance with the first level of Kirkpatrick’s four levels of
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 60

evaluation, the NAI Exit Survey was designed to determine whether or not teachers had a
positive reaction to the professional development. It is assumed that if teachers had a positive
reaction to the professional development, they would be more likely to implement the strategies
presenting in the training, therefore helping to validate conducting the three subsequent studies.
The NAI Exit Survey was administered online to the participating teachers. While a
number of questions were administered online ranging from the assessment of facilitators,
program administrators, to technology, seven statements on that survey assessed teachers’
overall reaction to the professional development. The statements were posed and responses of
agreement with the statements were based on a five-point scale, with 1 representing “strongly
disagree” and 5 representing a “strongly agree” response. The seven statements were as follows:
1. Teacher and student outcomes for the NAI program are clearly communicated.
2. As a participant of NAI, I have increased my knowledge and skills in teaching science
through inquiry.
3. Based on ideas and strategies explored through NAI, I feel I am a better teacher of
science.
4. NAI creates an on-going relationship with teachers and students.
5. The NAI program is focused on improving teaching and learning in the local community.
6. The NAI program creates a college-going culture for student participants.
7. Students who participate in NAI are better qualified to enter college than those who do
not.

Survey Results Mean scores from the teachers’ responses are shown below:
Table 3

Teacher Exit-Survey Mean Scores
Statement Mean Score
Communication of outcomes 4.11
Increase in knowledge/skills of inquiry teaching 4.05
Increase of confidence in teaching science 4.05
Ability to establish relationships between teacher and student 4.26
Focus on improving teaching and learning in community 4.42
Creation of college-going atmosphere 4.68
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 61

Preparation of better qualified college-bound students 4.32

It is important to note in this analysis the possible limitations of the results due to the fact
that all results showed positive gains. First, this survey was administered as a post-test only.
Without a pre-test to serve as a baseline, it is difficult to suggest with any certainty that teacher
agreement with the statements is due to participation with the professional development or due to
any preconceived notions of own ability or NAI program effectiveness prior to participation.
Nevertheless, the study yielded positive reactions based on agreement on all seven
statements. The first statement inquired about the NAI program’s ability to create clear learning
outcomes and communicate them with both staff and student. Based on the results, teachers felt
that the goals of increasing inquiry-based instruction for teachers and therefore increasing
student achievement in science were clearly communicated through the professional
development staff.
Statements two and three both related to the increase of knowledge of inquiry-based
instructional design and strategies and teacher confidence in implementing such strategies in
practice. Teacher positive reactions indicated that they believed they learned more inquiry-based
instructional strategies as a result of the professional development and felt confident in their
ability to appropriate such strategies into their practice.
Statements four and five both related to building of positive relationship, between the
teacher and student as well as between the school and community. Teacher positive reactions
indicated their belief that the NAI program adequately fosters positive teacher-student
relationships and serves the neighboring community based on the services and instruction they
provide.
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 62

The final two statements both assessed teacher opinion on the NAI program’s ability to
adequately foster a college-going atmosphere and prepare students for college. Teacher positive
reactions indicated that they believed the NAI program is doing a good job in setting high
expectations and fostering a college-going atmosphere for their students.
Overall, the seven statements included in the NAI Exit Survey were designed to get a
broad overview of teacher reaction to the professional development program. Results from the
survey indicated that teachers gave a positive reaction to the professional development and
generally agree with its commitment to inquiry-based science instruction for the purpose of
increasing student academic achievement and in a broader sense, preparation for the next stage in
their academic career.
Level Two: Learning
Pre- and Post-Surveys In a similar fashion to the level one research design, a similar
close-ended survey was devised and administered to the five participating teachers. In
accordance with Kirkpatrick’s four-level model, level two is designed to assess teacher learning
of the content presented in the professional development. Put simply, if level 1 is designed to
answer the question, “did the teachers like the professional development?”, level two is designed
to answer the question, “did the teachers learn from the professional development?”
This survey is designed as a pre-/post- assessment. Surveys were administered to the five
participating teachers as a paper survey at the very start of the professional development
program. The survey was administered again at the end of the professional development, but this
time as part of the NAI Exit Survey taken online. Much like the level one survey, this survey
consisted of a total of seventeen statements that were designed to assess teacher learning based
on their self-efficacy levels. Responses to the statements were based on a five-point scale, with 1
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 63

representing “strongly disagree” and 5 representing a “strongly agree” response. The first ten
statements focused on overall self-efficacy levels of the teachers in their ability to affect a
students’ academic achievement. The final seven statements focused specifically on self-
efficacy levels as they pertain to teachers’ knowledge of inquiry-based instruction and their
ability to effectively develop inquiry-based lessons. The seventeen statements are listed below:
Section 1: Assessing Teacher Self-Efficacy

1. I feel that I am making a significant educational difference in the lives of my students.
2. I feel I can get through to even the most difficult and unmotivated student.
3. Children are so private and complex, I never know if I am getting through to them.
4. I usually know how to get through to students.
5. There is a limit to what I can do to raise the achievement of my students.
6. Most of a student’s performance depends on the home environment, so I have limited
influence.
7. I am successful with the students in my class.
8. I am uncertain how to teach some of my students.
9. I feel some of my students are note making any progress.
10. My students’ peers influence their academic performance more than I do.

Section 2: Assessing Teacher Knowledge of Inquiry

1. I am confident about my ability to create effective inquiry-based lessons that can produce
positive academic change in my students.
2. I feel that inquiry-based learning is an important component of an effective science
curriculum.
3. I can identify and explain the four different levels of inquiry.
4. I can explain the purpose and characteristics of each stage of the 5E instructional model.
5. I am able to create appropriate activities for each stage of the 5E instructional model.
6. I feel confident in my ability to teach an inquiry-based lesson.
7. I feel that the use of inquiry greatly affects the motivation of my students to learn science.

Survey Results Results shown below represent the mean scores from teacher responses
in both the pre- and post-surveys. Data tables were divided by the two sections of the survey;
teacher overall self-efficacy and inquiry-based teaching self-efficacy. The first data table
represents results from the overall self-efficacy levels of teachers before and after the
professional development:
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 64

Table 4

Teacher Overall Self-Efficacy Survey Mean Scores
Statement Pre- Mean Post- Mean
1. Significant educational difference 4.20 4.60
2. Affect most difficult students 3.60 4.00
3. Children are private and complex 2.60 2.00
4. Getting through to students 4.00 4.20
5. Limit to teacher affect on student achievement 2.80 2.00
6. Home environment limits teacher effectiveness 2.60 2.00
7. Teacher successful with students 4.00 4.40
8. Teacher lack of knowledge on teaching students 2.60 2.20
9. Students are not making progress 2.20 2.20
10. Peers have more academic influence than teacher 2.60 2.20

This first section can be categorized into three themes. The first theme assessed teacher
self-efficacy levels through positive statements and is represented by statements 1, 2, 4, and 7.
The next theme assessed teacher self-perception of ineffectiveness through the use of negative
statements, represented by statements 5, 8, and 9. The last theme involved assessing teacher
perception of ineffectiveness due to outside influences on the student, represented by statements
3, 6, and 10.
Results from the first section of the surveys indicated little change in teachers’ overall
self-efficacy levels based on pre- and post- mean scores. In general, teachers agreed with the
positive statements and feel that they are effective teachers, both before and after the
professional development. In contrast, teachers generally disagreed with the negative statements
of teacher effectiveness, suggesting that while there are mitigating factors that affect student
achievement, teachers still have an impact on student learning. While pre- to post- changes can
be seen in all statements suggesting higher levels of self-efficacy as a result of the professional
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 65

development, such measured changes were largely insignificant to suggest that the professional
development contributed in any significant fashion. An exception to this was the results from
statement 5 that states, “There is a limit to what I can do to raise achievement of my students.”
Teachers largely responded “Neither Agree or Disagree” at the start of the professional
development and conversely responded “Disagree” at the end. A paired samples T-test indicated
statistical significance to this change (p=0.02), suggesting that teachers feel they can have a
greater impact on students as a result of participation with this professional development.

Table 5

Inquiry-Based Teaching Self-Efficacy Survey Mean Scores
Statement Pre- Mean Post- Mean
1. Creating effective inquiry-based lessons 3.60 4.40
2. Inquiry-based learning effective curriculum 4.60 4.80
3. Identify and explain four levels of inquiry 3.20 4.00
4. Explain 5E and characteristics of each stage 3.20 4.20
5. Creating appropriate 5E activities/lessons 3.40 4.20
6. Ability to teach inquiry-based lessons 3.60 4.60
7. Inquiry affects motivation of students 4.40 4.60

The second section of statements can be divided into three themes. The first theme aimed
to assess teacher perception of inquiry as an effective component to science instruction and is
represented by statements 2 and 7. The second major theme assessed if teachers felt confident
enough to accurately identify and describe the different levels of inquiry as well as the
components of the 5E instructional model. These questions are represented in statements 3 and
4. The final theme assessed teacher confidence levels in sufficiently creating and teaching
effective inquiry-based lessons based on the 5E model. Statements 1, 5, and 6 were designed to
assess this final theme.
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 66

Results from the first theme regarding teacher perception of inquiry indicated no change
in learning. Teachers agreed to both statements before and after the professional development,
which indicated that teachers largely felt that inquiry-based instruction is both an effective
component of curriculum and effective means to foster student motivation to learn science
concepts. Data from the second theme regarding knowledge of inquiry and the 5E instructional
model both showed positive results. At the start of the professional development, teachers’
average score was both 3.20, which indicated that teachers were unsure of their ability to identify
both the four types of inquiry as well as the components of the 5E instructional model. After the
professional development, scores increased to 4.00 and 4.20 respectively, indicating that teachers
felt confident in their ability to identify both the types of inquiry and the 5E model. Similar
results were found in statements 1, 5, and 6, which represented teacher application of knowledge
from the professional development to create and implement inquiry-based science lessons using
the 5E model. At the start of the professional development, teachers scored 3.60, 3.40 and 3.60
on statements 1, 5, and 6 respectively, indicating a lack of confidence in their ability to create
and implement inquiry-based lessons. After the professional development, scores increased to
4.40, 4.20, and 4.60 respectively, indicating an increase in teacher self-efficacy levels in their
ability to create and implement inquiry-based lessons.
Overall, this study was designed to assess teachers’ self-efficacy levels in their ability to
be effective teachers as well as their knowledge of inquiry-based instruction. Results from these
studies suggested that while teachers felt confident in their abilities to teach and impact student
learning, they were unsure of their knowledge of inquiry-based instruction as well as their ability
to create and implement effective lessons prior to the professional development. Post-survey
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 67

results showed an increase in self-efficacy levels in that teachers felt confident in not only
identifying inquiry, but also implementing inquiry into their instruction.
Level Three: Application
The level three study was designed to determine if teachers took their knowledge gained
from the professional development and applied that knowledge in the context of actual
classrooms. While an increase in teacher knowledge is an important component of professional
development or any training experience, such efforts seem meaningless if the knowledge gained
does not lead to any positive change in behavior. This study looked at if the desired behavior of
inquiry-based instruction did indeed take place through the use of teacher observations and
teacher interviews. Such qualitative methods served to establish teacher application of
knowledge in a manner that provided more depth and dimension in terms of what teachers were
actually doing in their classes and how the professional development has affected their
behaviors.
Teacher Observations The first aspect of this study involved twenty-minute teacher
observations during the Saturday academies. An observation rubric (see Appendix) was
designed based on the Reformed Teacher Observation Protocol (RTOP) which aimed to provide
a standardized mean to assess math and science teachers. More specifically, the RTOP was
designed to assess the degree to which classroom teachers established a “reform-oriented”
classroom consistent with constructivist theories and inquiry-based instruction (Piburn &
Sawada, 2007). The observation rubric derived from the RTOP was divided into two major
sections. The first section focused on engaging students in the inquiry process and higher order
thinking skills. The second section focused specifically on discourse and the different ways both
the teacher and students engaged in meaningful conversations around the science content.
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 68

Observation Results Due to time constraints, three of the five teachers were observed.
Despite the inability to observe all participating teachers, a number of positive observations were
made from the three teachers. First, lesson plans from all three teachers were consistent with the
structure of the 5E instructional model. A major component of the professional development is
the implementation of the 5E instructional model in the Saturday academies. While expected,
fidelity to the 5E model by the teachers indicated that teachers were implementing the structures
of inquiry-based instruction in their classrooms. Secondly, classroom observations of all three
teachers yielded a number of displays consistent with a constructivist-oriented, learner-centered,
inquiry-based classroom. First, teachers and students engaged in higher order cognitive
processes. Teachers asked more analytical and probing questions which pushed students
processing of scientific concepts. In addition to lower level questioning which asked students to
recall scientific facts or explain scientific concepts, students were asked to implement scientific
procedural knowledge in different scenarios, differentiate between concepts, and generate
hypotheses as to why observed phenomena took place. Secondly, a majority of students in class
participated in discourse around the science concept rather than a small number of students in
each class. Participation structures were set in place in each class that established individual
mandates on students to engage in scientific discourse. Such structures fostered equitable
student participation as well as allowing for richer whole class discussions around the scientific
topics.
Teacher Interviews Perhaps an even more telling example of how teachers internalized
and applied their knowledge of inquiry-based instruction from the professional development into
their classroom is the conducting of teacher interviews. Interviews provided a more open-ended
means of data in which teachers were able to explain how the professional development has
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 69

affected both their knowledge of inquiry-based instruction as well as their implementation of it in
the classes. An standardized open-ended interview protocol was designed that intended to assess
teacher prior knowledge of inquiry-based instruction as well as their explanation as to how their
instruction has changed as a result of the professional development.
Interview Results The first questions deal specifically with teacher prior experience with
inquiry-based teaching and their overall opinion of inquiry-based instruction. All five teachers
interviewed have expressed participation in some form of professional development with
inquiry-based instruction as a component. Two teachers have already had experience with the
5E instructional model prior to this professional development. As substantiated by the level one
and level two studies, all teachers have expressed a positive view of inquiry-based teaching. One
teacher listed the benefits of inquiry-based instruction in her class, stating that it “(1) develops
higher order thinking skills, (2) connects with content by asking questions, (3) connects with
content by attempting to answer their own questions, (4) develops curiosity and interest, and (5)
deepens content knowledge and understanding.” Another teacher expressed the inherent
inquisitive nature of students and how the inquiry approach takes advantage of that: “Scientists
are naturally curious. To have them figuring [scientific concepts] out themselves is the nature of
sciences. Using an inquiry approach really helps with the scientific method and therefore
learning science.” One teacher stated direct correlations between inquiry-based teaching and
increasing content learning: “Inquiry-based teaching really helps with the retention of the
material for longer periods of time… students remember the hands-on experiences and my CST
scores have increased because of it.”
The final questions of the protocol deal specifically with the question of application—
how have teachers changed and how are they applying their knowledge from the professional
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 70

development into their classrooms? When asked “what have you learned about inquiry teaching,
or what has changed as a result of your participation with this program?” two out of five teachers
cited the learning of new strategies as a positive result. One teacher stated: “Ever since I learned
how to do the “appointment clock” (a presented instructional strategy designed to foster more
student participation and cognitive processing), I’ve implemented it in my regular class. My
student have said how much they loved it and getting a lot more of my students to actively
participate.” Most (four out of five) teachers focused on the collaborative structures in place in
the professional development as an important change. One teacher liked the “more interaction
and sharing of practices” in the professional development and felt “more confident to keep doing
it during regular school.” Another teacher explained, “I appreciate the ongoing planning and
discussion with other educators and the different views and contributions” and “I was much more
inclined to include elements to the group plans” due to the collaborative nature of the
professional development.
The question in the interview protocol relating to application was framed in this manner:
“What would a typical day in your science class look like? Describe an average period or
block. Think back before this professional development and describe what¹s different (if
anything)? How do you start the lesson? How do you make sure students are
interested?” Three out of five teachers expressed a conscious decision to incorporate the 5E
instructional plan into their regular classroom. More specifically, teachers focused on
incorporating inquiry into their regular practice by frontloading inquiry at the beginning of a
lesson. One teachers noted that she now starts lessons with an “Engage” phase by posting a
question or case scenario for students to discuss and wrestle with. Another teacher cited a
similar structure: “Typically, I would start with an Engage activity to access prior knowledge and
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 71

link to novelty and curiosity. Explicit focus on student interest helps assure [motivation].”
Evidence through teacher observations and interviews suggest that teachers are not only
learning the structures of inquiry-based instruction, but also are applying those structures into
their practice. Classroom observations in the NAI Saturday academy showed that teachers were
staying true to the tenets of the 5E instructional model as well as setting up classroom structures
that foster student participation and processing of science concepts. While teacher interviews
substantiated the level one and 2 studies in that teachers had a positive view of the NAI
professional development, results were inconclusive as to whether teachers were fully
appropriating the 5E instructional model in their regular practice. Nevertheless, interview data
does suggest that teachers are making a conscious effort to incorporate inquiry in their regular
classes as a result of the NAI professional development.
Level Four: Results
This level four study focuses specifically on the intended results of the professional
development, which is student academic achievement in the learning of science content. In
contrast to the level one, two, and three studies that can be considered outputs in this professional
development, the level four study can be considered the bottom-line outcome of the professional
development. In other words, if the first three levels intended to answer, “did teachers like,
learn, and apply what was presented in the professional development?” the level four study asked
the question, “did the professional development achieve its intended results, which is an increase
in student learning of science?”
Pre- and Post-Test Results To answer this question, pre- and post- assessments were
given to students to assess their knowledge of scientific concepts before and after an inquiry-
based lesson. These assessments were identical ten-question multiple-choice tests given before
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 72

and after a 5E instructional learning cycle. Throughout the spring semester in which the study
was conducted, four learning modules were presented, resulting in four pre- and post-
assessments. The results are shown in the table below:
Table 6

Student Pre- and Post-Test Results
Module Pre-Test
Score (%)
Post-Test
Score (%)
Difference df p-value Effect
Size
Enzyme Function 50.6 70.4 +19.8 62 .00 .81
DNA Structure 57.4 75.6 +18.2 84 .00 .60
Protein Synthesis 54.1 68.9 +14.8 89 .00 .47
Squid Anatomy/Ecol. 43.4 63.0 +19.6 80 .00 .73

The four tests correspond to the four units (modules) presented by the NAI participating
teachers. Each module lasted two class periods. The Pre-test was administered at the start of the
module and the post-test was administered as the main component of the “Evaluation” phase
within the 5E instructional cycle. The results show positive gains in all four units with the
average increase in percentage score at 18.1 percent. The largest percentage increase was the
Enzyme Function module at 19.8 while the Protein Synthesis module experiences the smallest
increase at 14.8 percent. A paired-samples T-test was administered for each module test to
compare the pre- and post-test scores and their statistical significance. Results from the T-tests
showed that all four modules yielded p-values of less than .01, which suggests that the
professional development and inquiry-based lessons that emerged as a result of that professional
development had an effect on the increase in test scores. Furthermore, data analysis which
yielded Pearson’s coefficients for the four modules indicated effect sizes greater than .05 for
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 73

three of the four modules, therefore suggesting that the inquiry-based lessons presented
accounted for a large portion of the variance between the pre- and post-test scores.

ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 74

CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
This chapter provides a discussion of the findings presented in Chapter 4. It is divided
into four sections. The first section presents an overview of the study; the next section includes a
discussion of the findings related to the literature review; the next section presents implications
for inquiry-based professional development; and finally, the last section offers recommendations
for future study.
Overview of the Study
Both inquiry-based science teaching and online learning opportunities have grown in
popularity with recent pressures in the educational field. Despite such interest in both topics,
there is both conflicting research and limited research in the effectiveness of inquiry-based
teaching methods and online learning respectively. This study focused on the NAI-STEM
professional development program that concentrated on both inquiry science learning using an
online platform. The attendees participated in both synchronous and asynchronous online
sessions that facilitated their implementation of an inquiry-based curriculum to urban high school
students around the USC area.
The effectiveness of this professional development was assessed using the Kirkpatrick
Four Levels of Evaluation (1996). The first level looked at a post-professional development
survey that was administered to the participating teachers to assess their initial reaction to the
program. The second level looked at teacher self-efficacy levels using pre- and post-surveys to
assess if they learned from the professional development. The third level utilized teacher
observations and teacher interviews to assess if teachers applied the knowledge from the
professional development into their practice. The fourth level compared pre- and post-test scores
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 75

from science students of the participating teachers to assess if their implemented inquiry-based
strategies resulted in effective student learning of science. The findings of the study revealed
several themes further discussed in the next sections.
Discussion of Findings Relative to Literature Review
While inquiry-based teaching has been a long-standing element in the science classroom,
it has received recent attention as a result of the push for STEM education. As America
continues to struggle academically when compared to other developed nations, educational
policies have shifted towards improvement in technology, math, and sciences in order to stay
globally competitive. The literature review discussed this trend amidst the seemingly
contradictory policies of No Child Left Behind, which focused on standards-based instruction
and high-stakes accountability measures to assess schools. While the push for a standards-based
curriculum has been met with mixed reviews from administrators, teachers, and others in the
educational field, studies such as the McREL report (Lauer, Snow, Martin-Glenn, VanBuhler,
Stoutemeyer, & Snow-Renner, 2005) suggest that standards-based education has been effective
in improving teaching practices and student achievement. In contrast, the McREL report and
other studies note shifts in teaching strategies and curriculum away from fostering higher order
thinking skills and inquiry processes and towards focusing specifically on the high-stakes
standards tests. Studies also suggest that this “teaching to the test” strategies are more prevalent
in urban setting with disadvantaged students.
The NAI-STEM professional development was designed in part to address this
dichotomy by advocating the use of inquiry-based teaching strategies and lesson design in order
to address content standards. Developers of the professional development centered its approach
on a guided inquiry design based on Abram’s levels of inquiry (2007). By having teachers
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 76

develop the structure of content learning and having students engage in the inquiry processing
skills such as data collection and results interpretation, students are able to engage in both the
mandated content standards and higher order thinking skills concurrently. To incorporate the
guided inquiry approach, the 5E instructional model devised by the BSCS (Bybee, et al., 2006)
became the central lesson plan design presented to participating teachers.
Integration of Inquiry The first major theme that developed as a result of this study is
the overwhelming support for the integration of inquiry in the science classroom. Both the level
two study which utilized teacher pre- and post-surveys as well as the interviews from the level
three study are consistent with studies that advocate the use of inquiry in the classroom. In the
level two study, the second section of the pre- and post-surveys was designed to assess teacher
self-efficacy levels of their knowledge of inquiry and inquiry lesson design. Of the seven
statements related to inquiry learning, the top two statements that showed the most teacher
agreement both addressed teacher belief in the value of inquiry-based education. Statement 2,
which states, "I feel that inquiry-based learning is an important component of an effective
science curriculum” scored 4.60 at the start of the professional development and 4.80 at the end.
Statement 7, which states, “I feel that the use of inquiry greatly affects the motivation of my
students to learn science” similarly scored 4.40 before and 4.60 after the professional
development. While the pre- and post-scores of both statements were nearly identical, indicating
virtually no change in learning, the consistent high scores indicate that teachers echo the
sentiment of the studies in the literature review suggesting that inquiry-based learning is
effective in student learning.
Results from teacher interviews in the level three study substantiate this claim as well as
the perception of a standards-inquiry dichotomy. As mentioned in the results section, all
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 77

interviewed teachers expressed their positive view of inquiry-based teaching. In expressing their
positive view, they listed their own perceptions of inquiry and the benefits in its implementation
into the science curriculum. Teachers mentioned inquiry-based teaching methods as beneficial
for connecting to the content and deepening content knowledge. Furthermore, when asked what
challenges teachers face in successfully integrating inquiry into their classroom in both the
interviews as well as in casual conversation throughout the professional development, teachers
expressed concern over the feasibility of implementing inquiry amidst addressing the content
standards. The sentiment can be summed up by one participating teacher who stated, “I’ve
always wanted to find more ways to get more inquiry activities in my classroom, but it’s hard
when you’re so busy trying to cover all the standards.”
Difficulty with Technology Use Another major theme that arose from the study is the
lack of technological resources and literacy by some of the participating teachers. An integral
component of the professional development is the use of online resources such as the Adobe
Connect meeting interface and Wikispaces learning management system. Through the use of the
online meeting interface and learning management system, teachers were given the opportunity
to collaborate synchronously and asynchronously throughout the duration of the professional
development. The use of these online resources provide features consistent with effective
reform-oriented professional development as presented in the literature review. Both the
synchronous and asynchronous aspects of the professional development were designed to be task
driven in that teachers and facilitators worked in a collaborative fashion to create, implement,
and critique lesson plans and inquiry-based strategies in a collective manner. Furthermore, the
professional development was an ongoing process, rather than a traditional single-event
professional development. Teachers were given the infrastructure in which to work continuously
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 78

on lesson plans throughout the weeks through the use of the asynchronous Wikispaces and then
discuss any issues with the lesson plan in the synchronous Adobe Connect session prior to the
Saturday teaching event.
Unfortunately, the tools that were intended to provide an infrastructure for continuous
reform-oriented collaboration amongst the participants proved to be the biggest challenge.
Teachers often complained of their lack of technological literacy in order to effectively utilize
both the Adobe Connect and Wikispaces resources. Teachers often had difficulty logging into
the Adobe Connect meetings, or had difficulty with audio or video. Such challenges often led to
mild frustration by both participating teachers and administrative staff over the use of meeting
time for technical issues rather than collaboration and lesson reflection. This frustration was
more evident in the asynchronous Wikispaces learning management system. The Wikispaces
platform was intended to be used as an open source space where teachers could upload lesson
plans and modify or critique them asynchronously. By providing a collaboration space that was
asynchronous, teachers were not bound to set times and locations for collaboration and could
thus collaborate at their own convenience. Many teachers did not grasp the procedures for
correctly posting and editing lesson plans in the Wikispaces and instead conducted most of their
asynchronous collaboration through e-mail correspondence. In informal conversation with many
of the teachers, they agreed with the value of the online resources, but admitted that the
technological issues left them frustrated and consequentially relegated themselves to more
familiar forms of correspondence (i.e.: phone conversations, in-person collaboration, e-mails).
Effectiveness of the Professional Development Despite such challenges with the
technology, the final and most significant theme is in the overall effectiveness of the NAI-STEM
professional development program. As described in the results section, all four levels of study
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 79

returned data that suggests that the professional development was an effective means of
improving student academic achievement in science learning. Positive results were displayed in
the level one study which assessed teacher reaction, the level two study which assessed teacher
learning, the level three study which assessed teacher application of knowledge, and the level
four study which assessed student outcomes. To put in a more simpler fashion, the studies
suggest that teachers liked the professional development designed to implement inquiry-based
strategies, learned how to implement those presented strategies, applied such knowledge in the
classroom, and resulted in student academic achievement.
For the level one study, teachers were in agreement for every statement in the exit survey.
Based on teacher responses, teachers felt that the NAI-STEM professional development program
was effective in teaching inquiry and was beneficial for both the students and local community.
This comes as to no surprise given the positive sentiment that teachers have of inquiry-based
learning in general as explained earlier.
For the level two study, teachers showed gains in their own perceptions as an effective
teacher and teacher competent in inquiry strategies based on growth in pre- and post-survey
scores. While the teachers reported positive results in the first part of the survey that assessed
general self-efficacy as a teacher, those gains were relatively minimal. In other words, the
results suggest that while the NAI-STEM professional development helped increase teacher self-
efficacy, they already felt confident in their ability and impact as teachers. The larger gains were
evident in the second section of the surveys which assessed teacher learning of inquiry and
inquiry-based teaching strategies. Teachers reported significant gains in every statement that
referred to their ability to identify what inquiry is, to identify the components of an inquiry-based
lesson, and to design and implement an inquiry-based lesson.
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 80

For the level three study, teachers displayed implementation of the inquiry-based
strategies presented in the professional development as well as acknowledged their
implementation of inquiry-based strategies in their own classrooms. Lesson plans submitted
displayed implementation of the 5E instructional model (Bybee, et al., 2006).
More telling of the application of knowledge presented by the professional development was the
teacher observations and interviews. Through the 20-minute teacher observations conducted
throughout the semester, teachers showed effective use of presented inquiry strategies that
sought to increase student participation, processing skills, and collaborative discussion on
inquiry-based tasks and activities. Teacher interviews yielded results consistent with the teacher
observations in that teachers commented in their integration of the 5E instructional model in their
own classrooms outside the NAI program. Most teachers referenced a change in their lesson
plan design to incorporate more engagement activities at the start of a lesson to foster more
student inquiry and motivation. Teachers also referenced an increase in processing activities and
questioning to foster more student participation.
For the level four study, pre- and post-tests of participating students in the NAI Saturday
Academy yielded positive gains, suggesting an increase in student science learning. The results
from the level four study represent the centerpiece of the entire investigation as teacher,
administrator, project facilitator, and any other party involved in this project look to student
results as the primary indicator for the intended outcome of program effectiveness. Comparison
of pre- and post-test scores showed positive gains for all four unit assessments. The average
increase in percentage from pre-test to post-test score was 18.1 percent. Furthermore, the
differences from all four tests were statistically significant and yielded medium to large effect
sizes, therefore substantiating the claim that the professional development was effective in
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 81

increasing student academic achievement in science through the use of inquiry-based teaching
strategies.
Overall, this investigation and the four studies under it are consistent with the educational
literature on standards-based education, inquiry-based education, and professional development.
Results from teacher surveys and interviews are indicative of the current educational climate that
evolved under NCLB. While many studies represent increases in student achievement and
teacher skills as a result of NCLB, many teachers, especially in urban settings, have experienced
adverse reactions to NCLB such as favoring a “teach to the test” approach in lieu of a more
inquiry-based lesson design. The NAI professional development represents a possible solution
to this apparent dichotomy by addressing content standards through the use of inquiry. By
incorporating elements of guided-inquiry lesson design (Abrams, Southerland, & Evans, 2007;
Bybee, et al., 2006) coupled with characteristics of effective online professional development
(Garet, et al., 2001; Penuel, et al., 2007) in an online setting (Ally, 2007; Knowles, 1996), the
NAI-STEM professional development has been shown to be effective in increasing student
science academic achievement as this four level study (Kirkpatrick, 1996) suggests.
Implications for Professional Development
Despite all four studies within this investigation pointing to the overall success of this
professional development program, there were a number of challenges present that need to be
considered if looking to conduct a similar professional development design.
Develop Technological Literacy One of the major obstacles already mentioned is the
technical difficulties with the online platforms as a result of inadequate technological literacy by
the participating teachers. Both the Adobe Connect and Wikispaces platforms were novel to all
participating teachers, and there was a distinct learning curve that unfortunately was not attended
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 82

to by professional development facilitators due to time constraints. Teachers participated in an
initial technology orientation to be introduced to the Adobe Connect and Wikispaces platforms,
but little scaffolding and practice was given to the participating teachers. As a result, many of
the teachers found the platforms, especially the Wikispaces, difficult to use and therefore
relegated themselves to other methods to collaborate on lesson plans. A recommendation would
be to provide a more comprehensive orientation to both platforms in which teachers have an
opportunity to practice online collaboration before they begin live teaching with students.
Ensuring a Stronger Sense of Accountability Professional development should be
developed with the expectation that accountability is an integral part of the process. One of the
challenges of this professional development, in part due to the technology issues, was a lack of
shared responsibility for lesson planning and curriculum development. While teachers
participated in a high degree of collaboration with respect to modifying lesson plans and
reflection, a majority of the units and initial lesson structure was provided for the teachers. With
an initial idea of the lesson, teachers were able to devise appropriate activities and critical
questions that activated process skills related to the scientific concepts. A recommendation
would be to assign lead teachers to be responsible for designing initial lesson plans. By
distributing the units amongst the teachers, responsibility is shared and each teacher has
experience developing an inquiry-based lesson from start to finish.
Developing Spaces for Critical Reflection With responsibilities to participate
synchronously through the Adobe Connect platform, asynchronously through the Wikispaces,
and live interaction with students and other teachers during the Saturday Academy, it is
important to schedule time for critical reflection of lesson plan design and implementation.
While teachers and facilitators did have opportunities to reflect upon their practice, dedicated
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 83

time allotted to teacher reflection was not scheduled at any synchronous or in-person meetings.
A vast majority of time during synchronous meetings was spent in collaborative lesson planning
while other time was dedicated for teacher development of inquiry-based practices. A
recommendation would be to designate specific portions of synchronous or in-person meeting
time for critical reflection. Debriefing meetings immediately after a Saturday Academy and
video reflection in which teachers watch video of teachers teaching lessons and then providing
constructive criticism are two ways to actively incorporate critical reflection into the professional
development.
Recommendations for Future Study
The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of an online professional development
aimed at increasing student academic achievement of science through the implementation of
inquiry-based teaching strategies and lesson design. While the findings of this study suggest that
the NAI-STEM professional development is an effective program, there are a number of
limitations to this study which lend themselves to future research studies. First, this study lacks a
control group in which participating teachers and students were not given the treatment of an
inquiry-based professional development and instead taught lessons using a more traditional
didactic method of instruction. While administering a study in which there is a control group of
traditional instruction and an experimental group that participates in the professional
development seems unlikely, such a design where data can be compared is better at deducing if
the NAI professional development model is an effective means at increasing student
achievement.
A second limitation involves the lack of a substantial size of participants as well as the
homogeneous characteristics of the participants. This particular study consisted of five biology
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 84

teachers and under one hundred NAI students. The five participating biology teachers are all
veteran teachers with at least ten years of teaching experience. Likewise, the participating
students were selected for the program through teacher nominations. Furthermore, the teachers
work in the urban neighborhood around the USC campus and regularly serve students similar to
those in the NAI program. Students, due to teacher selection, are already relatively high-
performing students. Such homogeneity with both the veteran teachers and high-performing
students decreases the generalizability of the professional development. Further studies, which
utilize a larger number and wider range of participants, may prove to be more telling of the
generalizability of the NAI professional development model. Both veteran and novice teachers
should be considered from various school settings. Students, likewise, should range in prior
academic achievement level as well as academic setting to produce a broader spectrum of data
for which to determine program effectiveness.
Conclusion
While issues with the validity of this investigation are present, this study represents a
possible shift in the changing landscape of both science education and teacher education. With
the prospects of Common Core and the Next Generation Science Standards looming in the near
future, addressing the needs of the science student for both science content and science processes
is a growing challenge. Teachers need to be well equipped to teach both content and thinking
skills in an effective and efficient manner. Incorporating a guided-inquiry approach to teach
scientific concepts provides a possible solution to the problem of how to address both needs.
Secondly, the ability to train teachers and provide effective professional development can
be greatly enhanced when technology resources can be utilized to provide effective reform-
oriented teacher education and professional development. With the emergence of online
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 85

meetings and classrooms, the resources and faculty of traditional universities are becoming
increasingly accessible. Professional development should follow suit as effective programs can
not only benefit an urban setting in southern California, but also a rural neighborhood in
Nebraska or a suburban district in Connecticut. The ability to provide resources and support
through the use of online platforms should be explored if current educational professionals and
scholars are to make any serious attempt at closing the achievement gap, not only between urban
and privileged students, but also between America and the rest of the developing world.

ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 86

REFERENCES
Abrams, E., Southerland, S., & Evans, C. (. (2007). Inquiry in the classroom: Necessary
components of a useful definition. In E. Abrams, S. Southerland, & C. Evans, Inquiry in
the Science Classroom: Realities and Opportunities. Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Publishing.
Alliger, G., & Janak, E. (1989). Kirkpatrick's levels of training criteria: Thirty years later.
Personnel Psychology , 331-332.
Ally, M. (2007). Role and function of theory in online education development and delivery,
foundations of educational theory for online learning, theory and practice of online
learning. Athabasca, AB, Canada: Athabasca University.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2000). Designs for science literacy.
New York: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans.
Washington, DC: AAAS.
Anderson, R. (2002). Reforming science teaching: what research says about inquiry. Journal of
Science Teacher Education , 13 (1), 1-12.
Blanchard, M., Southerland, S., Osborne, J., Sampson, V., Annetta, L., & Granger, E. (2010). Is
inquiry possible in light of accountability?: A quantitative comparison of the relative
effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction. Science Education
, 758-616.
Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-
based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist ,
26, 369-398.
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 87

Bransford, J. D. (2005). Scientific inquiry and how people learn. In N. R. Council, How Students
Learn: History, Mathematics, and Science in the Classroom (pp. 397-419). Washington,
DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Briggs, D., & Weeks, J. (2011). The persistence of school-level value-added. Journal of
Educational and Behavioral Statistics , 36 (5), 616-637.
Brooks-Young, S. (2001). Is online professional development in your staff development plan?
Today's Catholic Teacher , 35 (2), 22.
Brown, A., & Campione, J. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning
environments: On procedures, principles and systems. In L. Schauble, & R. Glaser,
Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289-325). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Brown, J. (2004). Making the most of understanding by design. Washington, DC: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Bruner, J. (1961). The art of discovery. Harvard Educational Review , 31, 21-32.
Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New
York: Russell Sage.
Bybee, R. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Bybee, R., Taylor, J., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J., Westbrook, A., et al. (2006). The
BSCS 5E instructional model: origins, effectiveness, and applications. Colorado Springs,
CO: BSCS.
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 88

Cochran-Smith, M., & Fries, K. (2005). Researching teacher education in changing times:
politics and paradigms. Studying Teacher Education: the Report of the AERA Panel on
Research and Teacher Education , 37-68.
Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope , 23 (6), 42-44.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teacher learning that supports student learning. Educational
Leadership , 55 (5), 6-11.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2005). Teaching as a profession: Lessons in teacher preparation and
professional development. Phi Delta Kappan , 87 (3), 237-240.
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. (1995). Policies that support professional
development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan , 76 (8), 597-604.
DeBoer, G. (1991). A history of ideas in science education. New York: Teachers College,
Columbia University.
DeBoer, G. (2002). Student-centered teaching in a standards-based world: finding a sensible
balance. Science and Education , 11, 405-417.
Desimone, L. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully
implemented? Review of Educational Research , 72 (1), 433-479.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Free Press.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Macmillan.
Downes, T., Fluck, A., Gibbons, P., Leonard, R., Matthews, C., Oliver, R., et al. (2001). Making
better connections: Models of teacher professional development for the integration of
information and communication technology into classroom practice. Canberra:
Australian Curriculum Studies Association.
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 89

Eberfein, T., Kampmeier, J., Minderhout, V., Moog, R., Platt, T., Varma-Nelson, P., et al.
(2008). Pedagoges of engagement in science. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Education , 36 (4), 262-273.
Elmore, R. (2002). Bridging the ap between standards and achievement: The imperative for
professional development in education. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.
Emeagwali, N. (2010). National science board says U.S. lead in STEM slipping. Techniques , 85,
10-11.
Fishman, B., & Krajcik, J. (2003). What does it mean to create sustainable science curriculum
innovations? Science Education , 87 (4), 564-573.
Frank, K., Zhao, Y., & Borman, K. (2004). Social capital and the diffusion of innovations
withing organizations: Application to the implementation of computer technology in
schools. Sociology of Education , 77 (2), 148-171.
Fullan, M. (2002). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. Bristol, PA: Falmer
Press.
Garet, M., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K. (2001). What makes professional
development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American
Educational Research Journal , 38 (4), 915-945.
Gess-Newsome, J., Southerland, S., Johnston, A., & Woodbury, S. (2003). Educational reform,
personal practical theories, and dissatisfaction: The anatomy of change in college science
teaching. American Educational Research Journal , 40 (3), 731-767.
Gonsalves, T., Kawabata, R., Nakagawa, K., Ishikawa, Y., & Itoh, K. (2005). Computer-
mediated collaborative engineering system (CMCES) and its application to education.
Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science , 9 (2), 12-21.
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 90

Guskey, T. (2002). Does it make a difference? Educational Leadership , 59 (6), 45-51.
Hall, D., & McCurdy. (1990). A comparison of a biological sciences curriculum study laboratory
and a tradtional laboratory on student achievement at two private liberal arts colleges.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 27, 625-636.
Hawley, W., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development: A new
consensus. In L. Darling-Hammond, & G. Sykes, Teaching as the Learning Profession:
Handbook of Policy and Practice (pp. 127-150). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Herron, M. (1971). The nature of scientific enquiry. School Review , 79 (2), 171-212.
Kaniuka, T. (2009). NCLB, school-based instructional policy and decision making: a proposed
research agenda. College Student Journal , 43 (3), pp. 787-799.
Kirkpatrick, D. (1996, January). Great ideas revisited. Training and Development , 54-59.
Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not
work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential,
and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist , 41 (2), 75-86.
Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction:
Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science , 12, 661-667.
Knowles, M. (1996). Adult learning. In R. (. Craig, The ASTD training & development
handbook: A guide to human resource development (pp. 253-266). New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Lauer, P., Snow, D., Martin-Glenn, M., VanBuhler, R., Stoutemeyer, K., & Snow-Renner, R.
(2005). The influence of standards on K-12 teaching and learning: A research synthesis.
Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 91

Leonard, W. (1983). An experimental study of a BSCS-style laboratory approach for university
general biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 20 (9), 807-813.
Leonard, W., Cavana, G., & Lowery, L. (1981). An experimental test of an extended discretion
approach for high school biology laboratory investigations. Journal of Research in
science teaching , 18, 497-504.
Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2001). Teachers caught in the action: Professional development
that matters. New York: Teachers College Press.
Little, J. (1993). Teacher's professional development in a climate of educational reform.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 15 (2), 129-151.
Martineau, J. (2010). The validity of Value-Added Models: An allegory. Phi Delta Kappan , 91
(7), 64-67.
Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American
Psychologist , 59 (1), 14-19.
McMurrer, J. (2007). Choices, changes, and challenges: Curriculum and instruction in the
NCLB era. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
McNeil, L., & Valanzuela, A. (2001). The harmful impact of the TAAS system of testing in
Texas: Beneath the accountability rhetoric. In G. Orfield, & M. Kornhaber, Raising
Standards or Raising Barriers? (pp. 127-150). New York: Century Foundation Press.
McRae, D., Ainsworth, G., Groves, R., Rowland, M., & Zbar, V. (2001). PD 2000 Australia: A
national mapping of school teacher professional development. Canberra: Commonwealth
Department of Education Training and Youth Affairs.
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 92

Miller, L., & Silvernail, D. (1994). Wells Junior High School: Evolution of a professional
development school. In L. Darling-Hammond, Professional Development Schools:
Schools for Developing a Profession. New York: Teachers College Press.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for
educational reform. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching
for America's future. Woodbridge: National Commission on Teaching and America's
Future.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A
guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (1996). National science standards. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Northroup, P. (2001). A framework for designing interactivity in web-based instruction. In A. (.
Rossett, The ASTD e-learning handbook (pp. 127-136). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Obama, B. (2009, Summer). What science can do: Science is more essential for our prosperity,
our security, our health, our environment, and our quality of life than it has ever been
before. Issues in Science and Technology , 25 (4) . Richardson, TX: National Academy of
Sciences.
Office of the Press Secretary. (2009, November 23). President Obama launches "Educate to
Innovate" Campaign for Excellence in Scienc, Tehnology, Engineering & Math (Stem)
Education. Retrieved June 4, 2011, from The White House:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-launches-educate-innovate-
campaign-excellence-science-technology-en
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 93

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic
Books.
Penuel, W., Fishman, B., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. (2007). What makes professional
development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American
Educational Research Journal , 44 (4), 921-958.
Phillips, J., & Phillips, P. (2007). The Value of Learning. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Piburn, M., & Sawada, D. (2007). Reform Teacher Observation Protocol (RTOP): Reference
Manual. Retrieved August 6, 2012, from ASU RIMSE: Research and Innovation in
Mathematics and Science:
http://mathed.asu.edu/instruments/RTOP/RTOP_Reference_Manual.pdf
Plant, R. (1994). Who is evaluating training? Kirkpatrick's mirror. Journal of European
Industrial Training , 18 (5), 27-32.
Reischmann, J. (2004, September 9). Andragogy. History, meaning, context, function. Retrieved
May 2, 2012, from Andragogy.net: http://www.andragogy.net
Scherrer, J. (2011). Measuring teaching using Value-Added Modeling: The imperfect balance.
National Association of Secondary School Principals. NASSP Bulletin , 95 (2), 122-140.
Schochet, P., & Chiang, H. (2011). Esimation and identification of the Compiler Average Causal
Effect Parameter in education RCTs. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Sciences ,
36 (3), 307-345.
Schoen, L., & Fusarelli, L. (2008). Innovation, NCLB, and the fear factor. Educational Policy ,
22 (1), 181-203.
Schwab, J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J. Schwab, & P. Bradwein, The
Teaching of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 94

Seagrave, S., & Holt, D. (2004). Contemporary learning environments: Designing e-learning for
education in the professions. Distance Education , 24 (1), 7-24.
Shaha, S., V., L., O'Donnell, T., & Brown, D. (2004). Evaulating professional development: An
approach to verifying program impact on teachers and students. Oxford, OH: National
Staff Development Council.
Singer, J., Krajcik, J., Marx, R., & Clay-Chambers, J. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry
projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist ,
35 (3), 165-179.
Smylie, M. (1996). From bureaucratic control to building human capital: The importance of
teacher learning in education reform. Educational Researcher , 25 (9), 9-11.
Spillane, J. (1999). External reform initiatives and teachers' efforts to reconstruct their practice:
The mediating role of teachers' zones of enactment. Journal of Curriculum Studies (31),
143-175.
Spillane, J. (2004). Standards deviation: How schools misunderstand education policy.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Spillane, J., & Thompson, C. (1997). Reconstruction conceptions of local capacity: The local
education agency's capacity for ambitious instructional reform. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis , 19 (2), 185-203.
Steffe, L., & Gale, J. (. (1995). Constructivism in Education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap. New York: Free Press.
Stigler, J., & Stevenson, H. (1991). How Asian teachers polish each lesson to perfection.
American Educator , 15 (1), 12-21, 43-47.
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 95

Supovitz, J., & Turner, H. (2000). The effects of professional developmenton science teaching
practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 37 (2), 963-
980.
Tabernik, A. (2010). Addressing low U.S. student achievement in mathematics and science
through changes in professional development and teaching and learning. International
Journal of Educational Reform , 19 (1), 34-50.
Teddlie, C., & Stringfield, S. (1993). Schools make a difference: Lessons learned from a ten-year
study of school effects. New York: Teachers College Press.
Tinker, B. (2003). NetCourses for staff development. Retrieved Jan 10, 2012, from Milken
Family Foundation:
http://www.mff.org/edtech/article.taf?_function=detail&Content_uid1=107
Trowbridge, L., & Bybee, R. (1990). Becoming a secondary school science teacher. Columbus,
OH: Merrill Publishing Company.
Vavasseur, C., & Macgregor, K. (2008). Extending content-focused professional development
through online communities of practice. Journal of Research on Technology in Education
, 40 (4), 517-536.
Viadero, D. (2008). Scrutiny heightens for 'Value Added' research methods. Education Week , 27
(36), 1-3.
Vrasidas, C. (2000). Constructivism versus objectivism: implications for interaction, course
design, and evaluation in distance education. International Journal of Educational
Telecommunication , 6 (4), 339-362.
Vrasidas, C., & Zembylas, M. (2004). Online professional development: Lessons from the field.
Education & Training , 46 (6/7), 326.
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 96

Wei, R., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009).
Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development
in the United States and abroad. Dallas: National Staff Development Council.
Wenger, E., & Snyder, W. (2000). Communities of practice: The organizational frontier.
Harvard Business Review , 78 (1), 139-145.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.

ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 97

APPENDIX A:
POST-SURVEY FOR LEVEL ONE & LEVEL TWO STUDY
Teacher Post-Survey

Participant Background:
1. At what school do you regularly teach science? [choices include: Foshay, Muir, El Sereno,
Manual Arts, 32
nd
Street, other: ______, not currently teaching]

2. What is the highest level of formal science training you have received? [High school,
bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, doctorate, other]

3. How long have you been a teacher? [first year, 1-2 years, 3-5 years, 6-10 years, 11-15 years,
16-20 years, more than 20 years]

4. How long have you taught at this school? [first year, 1-2 years, 3-5 years, 6-10 years, 11-15
years, 16-20 years, more than 20 years]

5. Have you participated as an NAI teacher before? [yes / no]

6. Where you an NAI participant? [yes/no]

7. Did you participate in the Saturday Academy [yes/no] {if “no” do not show section on
Saturday Academies}

8. Did you participate in the online trainings [yes/no]

9. What was your reason for participating in NAI? ___________________________________

On a scale of 1-5, rate the following characteristics or components:

Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
5 4 3 2 1

Reflecting on my influence as a teacher: Identify the degree to which you agree with the
following statements:

1. ____ I feel that I am making a significant educational difference in the lives of my
students.
2. ____ I feel I can get through to even the most difficult and unmotivated students.
3. ____ Children are so private and complex, I never know if I am getting through to
them.
4. ____ I usually know how to get through to students.
5. ____ There is a limit to what I can do to raise the achievement of my students.
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 98

6. ____ Most of a student's performance depends on the home environment, so I have limited
influence.
7. ____ I am successful with the students in my class.
8. ____ I am uncertain how to teach some of my students.
9. ____ I feel some of my students are not making any academic progress.
10. ____ My students' peers influence their motivation more than I do.
11. ____ Most of my students’ motivation to achieve in school depends on the home
environment, so I have limited influence.
12. ____ My students' peers influence their academic performance more than I do.

Inquiry-based teaching: Identify the degree to which you agree with the following statements:

13. ____ I am confident about my ability to create effective inquiry-based lessons that can
produce positive academic change in my students.
14. ____ I feel that inquiry-based learning is an important component of an effective science
curriculum.
15. ____ I can identify and explain the four different levels of inquiry.
16. ____ I can explain the purpose and characteristics of each stage of the 5E instructional
model.
17. ____ I am able to create appropriate activities for each stage of the 5E instructional model.
18. ____ I feel confident in my ability to teach an inquiry-based lesson.

Overall impressions of the NAI program: Identify the degree to which you agree with the
following statements:

19. ____ Teacher and student outcomes for the NAI program are clearly communicated.
20. ____ As a participant of NAI, I have increased my knowledge and skills in teaching science
through inquiry.
21. ____ Based on ideas and strategies explored through NAI, I feel I am a better teacher of
science.
22. ____ NAI creates an on-going relationship with teachers and students
23. ____ The NAI program is a focused on improving teaching and learning in the local
community.
24. ____ The NAI program creates a college-going culture for student participants.
25. ____ Students who participate in NAI are better qualified to enter college than those who do
not.
26. ____ I learned more about environmental and ocean literacy through participation with NAI.
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 99

APPENDIX B:
PRE-SURVEY FOR LEVEL TWO STUDY
Teacher Post-Survey

Participant Background:
10. At what school do you regularly teach science? [choices include: Foshay, Muir, El Sereno,
Manual Arts, 32
nd
Street, other: ______, not currently teaching]

11. What is the highest level of formal science training you have received? [High school,
bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, doctorate, other]

12. How long have you been a teacher? [first year, 1-2 years, 3-5 years, 6-10 years, 11-15 years,
16-20 years, more than 20 years]

13. How long have you taught at this school? [first year, 1-2 years, 3-5 years, 6-10 years, 11-15
years, 16-20 years, more than 20 years]

14. Have you participated as an NAI teacher before? [yes / no]

15. Where you an NAI participant? [yes/no]

16. Did you participate in the Saturday Academy [yes/no] {if “no” do not show section on
Saturday Academies}

17. Did you participate in the online trainings [yes/no]

18. What was your reason for participating in NAI? ___________________________________

On a scale of 1-5, rate the following characteristics or components:

Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
5 4 3 2 1

Reflecting on my influence as a teacher: Identify the degree to which you agree with the
following statements:

13. ____ I feel that I am making a significant educational difference in the lives of my
students.
14. ____ I feel I can get through to even the most difficult and unmotivated students.
15. ____ Children are so private and complex, I never know if I am getting through to
them.
16. ____ I usually know how to get through to students.
17. ____ There is a limit to what I can do to raise the achievement of my students.
ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 100

18. ____ Most of a student's performance depends on the home environment, so I have limited
influence.
19. ____ I am successful with the students in my class.
20. ____ I am uncertain how to teach some of my students.
21. ____ I feel some of my students are not making any academic progress.
22. ____ My students' peers influence their motivation more than I do.
23. ____ Most of my students’ motivation to achieve in school depends on the home
environment, so I have limited influence.
24. ____ My students' peers influence their academic performance more than I do.

Inquiry-based teaching: Identify the degree to which you agree with the following statements:

19. ____ I am confident about my ability to create effective inquiry-based lessons that can
produce positive academic change in my students.
20. ____ I feel that inquiry-based learning is an important component of an effective science
curriculum.
21. ____ I can identify and explain the four different levels of inquiry.
22. ____ I can explain the purpose and characteristics of each stage of the 5E instructional
model.
23. ____ I am able to create appropriate activities for each stage of the 5E instructional model.
24. ____ I feel confident in my ability to teach an inquiry-based lesson.

Overall impressions of the NAI program: Identify the degree to which you agree with the
following statements:

27. ____ Teacher and student outcomes for the NAI program are clearly communicated.
28. ____ As a participant of NAI, I have increased my knowledge and skills in teaching science
through inquiry.
29. ____ Based on ideas and strategies explored through NAI, I feel I am a better teacher of
science.
30. ____ NAI creates an on-going relationship with teachers and students
31. ____ The NAI program is a focused on improving teaching and learning in the local
community.
32. ____ The NAI program creates a college-going culture for student participants.
33. ____ Students who participate in NAI are better qualified to enter college than those who do
not.
34. ____ I learned more about environmental and ocean literacy through participation with NAI.

ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 101

APPENDIX C:
OBSERVATION RUBRIC FOR LEVEL THREE STUDY

APPENDIX B:
TITLE

Begin typing here.

ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 102

APPENDIX D:
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR LEVEL THREE STUDY
Interviewer: Date:

Interviewee: Job Title:

Introduction:
The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of a professional development
program aimed at increasing inquiry-based teaching in the NAI Saturday Enrichment program.
The goal of this conversation is to determine to what extent has the professional development
program led to teacher learning and a change in classroom practices.

I want to assure you that your comments will be strictly confidential. Your comments will not be
made public and will only be published in my dissertation. Moreover, I will not identify you by
name.

This interview should last about 30-45 minutes. Do you have any questions before we begin?

Prior Experience and Opinion with (Inquiry-based) Teaching
1. Tell me about what classes you’re teaching this year.
2. Tell me about the professional development you’re doing around IBT. Could you give an
example?
3. What is your opinion of inquiry-based teaching (IBT)?
a. What advantages do you see with IBT?
b. What challenges do you see with IBT?
4. Was this new information for you? Have you done PD on IBT before?
5. How does this PD compare to prior PD experiences?

Experience and Learning from Professional Development Program
6. What have you learned about inquiry-based teaching changed as a result of your
participation with this program?
7. How has your teaching practice changed as a result of your participation with this
program? How?
a. What would a typical day in your science class look like? Describe an average
period or block. Think back before PD. What’s different?
b. How do you start the lesson? How do you make sure students are interested?
8. What challenges do you find implementing IBT in your classroom?

ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 103

APPENDIX E:
SAMPLE PRE-POST TESTS FOR LEVEL FOUR STUDY

Enzyme Function Pre/Post-Test

____1. Chemical reactions that release energy
a. will not occur. c. will always explode.
b. will never explode. d. often occur spontaneously.

____2. Which of the following is NOT a function of proteins?
a. store and transmit heredity
b. help to fight disease
c. control the rate of reactions and regulate cell processes
d. build tissues such as bone and muscle

____3. What is the term used to describe the energy needed to get a reaction started?
a. adhesion energy c. cohesion energy
b. activation energy d. chemical energy

____4. Which of the following statements about enzymes is NOT true?
a. Enzymes work best at a specified pH.
b. All catalysts are enzymes.
c. Enzymes are proteins.
d. Enzymes are organic catalysts.

____5. A substance that accelerates the rate of a chemical reaction is called a(an)
a. catalyst. c. molecule.
b. lipid. d. element.

____6. Identify the reactant(s) in the chemical reaction, CO
2
+ H
2
O → H
2
CO
3
.
a. CO
2
, H
2
O, and H
2
CO
3
c. H
2
CO
3

b. CO
2
and H
2
O d. CO
2

____7. Enzymes catalyze the rates of metabolic reactions by
a. changing exergonic reactions to endergonic reactions
b. binding to particular substrates and lowering the activation energy required by the reaction
c. preventing reaction products from inactivating substrates
d. decreasing the amount of bonding between the substrates

____8. What is the process that changes one set of chemicals into another set of chemicals?
a. cohesion c. chemical reaction
b. adhesion d. dissolving

____9. How do enzymes affect the activation energy of a reaction?
a. decreases c. no effect
b. increases d. equalibrium

____10. What causes fruit to ripen more slowly in a refrigerator?
a. low temperatures reduce the action of ripening enzymes
b. fruit needs sunlight to ripen
c. humidity accelerates ripening
d. enzymes produced by bacteria inhibit ripening

ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 104

DNA Structure Pre-Post Quiz

____1. The structure of DNA is different from that of RNA. One such difference is only DNA
a. is composed of nitrogenous bases c. includes the base thymine
b. has a sugar and phosphate backbone d. includes the base uracil

____2. All of the following are true about the structure of DNA EXCEPT
a. the DNA backbone consists of an alternating sugar-phosphate sequence
b. DNA is normally double stranded molecule
c. DNA contains the nucleotide bases adenine, guanine, cytosine and uracil.
d. in DNA the number of guanine bases equals the number of cytosine bases

____3.
A - T - T - C - G - C

This single strand of DNA would have which complementary DNA sequence?
a. A - U - U - C - G - C c. U - A - A - G - C - G
b. T - A - A - G - C - G d. G - C - C - U - A - U

____4. In a double strand of DNA, the amount of __________ base is equal to the amount of
__________ base.
a. uracil; adenine c. leucine; guanine
b. thymine; uracil d. adenine; thymine

____5.

The diagram above represents a molecule of _________ , the letter x represents a group of atoms known
as _____________ , and the structures labeled G,C,T, and A represent _____________ .
a. DNA, ribose, base pairs c. DNA, phosphates, nitrogenous bases
b. RNA, deoxyribose sugars, hormones d. RNA, ribose, sugars

____6. Which of the following are found in both DNA and RNA?
a. ribose, phosphate groups, and adenine
b. deoxyribose, phosphate groups, and guanine
c. phosphate groups, guanine, and cytosine
d. phosphate groups, guanine, and thymine

____7. Describe the structure of DNA based on Watson and Crick’s model.
a. DNA is single stranded
b. DNA is made of two strands that twist into a double helix.
c. guanine forms hydrogen bonds with adenine.
d. thymine forms hydrogen bonds with cytosine

ASSESSING INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION 105

____8.

In the diagram above, the base sequence of strand B is most likely
a. C - A - C - T - G - G c. G - G - T - C - A - C
b. G - T - G - U - C - C d. G - T - G - A - C - C

____9. In the figure below, what is labeled as “X”

a. RNA c. a phosphate group
b. a nucleotide d. an amino acid

____10. Rosalind Franklin’s x-ray of DNA influenced Watson and Crick in what manner?
a. It demonstrated that DNA was the primary mode of gene expression.
b. It was used to develop the physical model / structure of DNA.
c. It was used to develop the law of segregation.
d. It was used to identify the nitrogenous bases of DNA.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Both inquiry-based science teaching and online learning opportunities have grown in popularity with recent pressures in the educational field. Despite such interest in both topics, there is both conflicting research and limited research in the effectiveness of inquiry-based teaching methods and online learning respectively. This study focused on the Neighborhood Academic Initiative STEM (NAI-STEM) professional development program that concentrated on inquiry science learning using an online platform. The attendees participated in both synchronous and asynchronous online sessions that facilitated their implementation of an inquiry-based curriculum to urban high school students around the University of Southern California area. The effectiveness of this professional development was assessed using Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Evaluation model (1996), utilizing tools such as pre- and post-surveys, teacher observations and interviews, and student pre- and post-assessment scores. Results suggest that inquiry-based teaching is effective in increasing student science academic achievement, but further studies should be conducted to test the generalizability of this professional development design.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Impact of inquiry‐based learning professional development on implementation of Common Core State Standards

PDF

Influence of globalization and educational policy on development of 21st-century skills and education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and the science and technology fairs in ...

PDF

Closing the science achievement gap for ninth grade English learners through standards- and inquiry-based science instruction

PDF

Effective professional development strategies to support the advancement of women into senior student affairs officer positions

PDF

Perceptions of TESOL teacher education: strengths, weaknesses, characteristics, and effective components

PDF

The impact of globalization, economics, and educational policy on the development of 21st century skills and STEM education in Costa Rica

PDF

Success in the sticky: exploring the professional learning and instructional practices that are sticky for distinguished secondary STEM educators of students historically…

PDF

Impact of technology on teaching and learning practices at high‐technology use K-12 schools: a case study

PDF

Unveiling the visible impact: a meta-analysis on inquiry-based teaching and the effects on Black and Latinx student achievement

PDF

Examining opportunity-to-learn and success in high school mathematics performance in California under NCLB

PDF

Will school-based online faculty development be an effective tool for their professional growth?

PDF

Globalization and the need for 21st-century skills: implications for policy education in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and project-based learning in schools in Ireland

PDF

Enhancing professional development aimed at changing teachers' perceptions of Micronesian students

PDF

The impact of science, technology, engineering and math education on the development of a knowledge based economy in Costa Rica

PDF

STEM integration: a case study of a 21st century skills professional development program for math and science teachers in an urban school

PDF

Examining the effects of structured dialogue grounded in socioculturalism as a tool to facilitate professional development in secondary science

PDF

The role of globalization; science, technology, engineering, and math education; project-based learning; and national science fair policy in creating 21st-century ready students in Costa Rica

PDF

Developing mathematical reasoning: a comparative study using student and teacher-centered pedagogies

PDF

The impact of globalization, economics, and educational policy on the development of 21st-century skills and education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in Costa Rican schools

PDF

How effective professional development in differentiated instruction can save Hawaii's Catholic schools

Asset Metadata

Creator Gomez, Mark C. (author)

Core Title Assessing the effectiveness of an inquiry-based science education professional development

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 11/29/2012

Defense Date 10/22/2012

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag inquiry-based science teaching,Kirkpatrick four levels of evaluation,OAI-PMH Harvest,online learning,professional development,STEM education

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hocevar, Dennis (committee chair), García, Pedro Enrique (committee member), Hasan, Angela Laila (committee member)

Creator Email makoy4031@gmail.com,markgome@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-122146

Unique identifier UC11290451

Identifier usctheses-c3-122146 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-GomezMarkC-1368.pdf

Dmrecord 122146

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Gomez, Mark C.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA