Student Perspectives on Learning Inquiry-Oriented Science

            The purpose of this study was to describe the relationship between teacher and student perceptions of inquiry-oriented teaching practice. In addition this study documented elementary student understanding of the nature of science as background for interpreting their statements about teaching. An extensive review of the literature on inquiry-oriented teaching revealed that studies generally concentrated on student behaviors and products and excluded descriptions of teaching practice that lead to those behaviors and products (Flick, 1995). While interest in inquiry-oriented teaching has been persistent for decades, the national science education standards (NRC, 1995) have the implicit assumption that inquiry-oriented teaching practice will be a part of every classroom that aspires to address the standards. The standards also explicitly state the goal of communicating the nature of the scientific enterprise as part of science education. An extensive review of the literature on teacher knowledge of the nature of science shows it to be a long standing goal of science education and yet one where teacher understanding is minimal (Lederman, 1992).

            Integrated Science Concepts (ISC) is a four-year program designed to improve teacher knowledge of science, the nature of science, and recommended teaching practices. An evaluation component of ISC is to examine effects on students of teacher practice as influenced by project inservice sessions. Teaching behaviors that include more inquiry-oriented instruction must be tracked against student perceptions of these changes. If students don't perceive inquiry to be taking place or don't understand the purpose of this type of instruction, then its effectiveness is compromised. This study incorporated three data sources to derive a picture of inquiry-oriented teaching practice (a) video tape of teaching episodes, (b) survey data establishing the teacher's perspective of his/her own instructional practice, and (c) interviews with selected students from each of the teachers studied. Results indicated a consistency between student and teacher views of inquiry-oriented instructional goals and practices. The few discrepancies as well as broad areas of agreement between students and teachers reinforce guidelines already well articulated in the literature but suggest some modifications by grade level.

Subjects and Procedures

            Three teachers from the first-year cohort of 16 teachers in the project were selected to participate in an examination of their teaching as influenced by the ISC project. Selection was based on evaluations of classroom video tapes, level of participation in project workshops, and willingness to cooperate in the complex logistics necessary to solicit parental and student informed consent to conduct video-taped interviews. As part of the cohort, these teachers filled out the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) (Taylor, Fraser, & White, 1994) and the Science Teacher Beliefs Instrument (STEBI) (Epochs & Riggs, 1990) at the end of the first year of inservice activities at the same time student data were collected. These teachers collaborated with the authors in the design of interview protocols used with members of their class whom they selected. The video-taped interviews were conducted during school time and lasted about 30 minutes. Simple classroom materials used during instruction prompted student thinking about science concepts. All interviews were conducted in classrooms unoccupied at the time of the interviews.

            The pseudonyms of the teachers selected for this study were Mr. Lesh, 6th grade; Ms. Haver, 5th grade; and Ms. Braeburn, 4th grade. The teachers selected students for interviewing based on the criteria of providing a cross section of conceptual understanding of the science subject matter and an approximately equal distribution between males and females. To keep the research blind to the perceived achievement of the students, teachers provided an indication of student achievement after the interviews and analysis were completed. This provided an internal validation of the criterion of providing a range of student conceptual understanding among the subjects. Individual student transcripts were coded with three or four characters begin with the initial of the~ teacher, a unique student number, and M or F designating gender. Those students who teachers perceived to be high achievers in science are designated by an asterisk (*). The distribution of interviews across classrooms is shown below:

Table 1

Sample of Students Interviewed by Grade and Gender

______________________________________________

                        Boys          Girls          Totals

______________________________________________

Lesh (6th)         3                  4                  7

Haver(5th)        5                  4                  9

Braeburn (4th)  6                  5                  11

            The interviews were organized around topics designated by the teachers as being most appropriate for their relationship to the content of project inservice activities and of most interest to them in terms of feedback on their instruction. The teachers also discussed materials used during instruction from which props were selected for the interviews.

            The interview protocol was designed to investigate three areas of student understanding considered sign)ficant in describing and evaluating classroom instruction from the perspective of students. These areas were (a) student knowledge in a topic selected by the teacher, (b) student understanding of the nature of science, and (c) student perceptions of specific teaching practices considered sign)ficant to the goals of ISC project. Interview protocols had to be tailor made for each of the three science topics, however, a standard set of questions were developed for probing perceptions of teaching practice and understandings of the nature of science. As an example, the protocol for Ms. Braeburn is described below followed by the standard protocols.

            Ms. Braeburn selected her study of seasons and the relationship of earth and sun as the topic. She collaborated in establishing the following basis for the interview: (a) The seasons result from the uneven heating of the Earth's surface due to the tilt of the Earth's axis relative to its path around the sun, (b) The sun provides all the energy for our weather, and (c) Air that is warmer than the air around it will rise, or float, above the cooler air.

            The classroom materials included a globe, flashlight, and tennis ball for discussingday/night, summer/winter, and global weather patterns. The interview protocol was:

• What causes the seasons?
• Why does it get cooler in the winter and warmer in the summer?
• How does the tilt affect our seasons?
• How do we get day and night?
• Why do we say that the sun creates our weather?
• Explain why this card stays on this upside-down glass of water. Why doesn't the water fall out?
• Why doesn't the water in the cup push the plastic cover and air out of the way and fall out?

 

            Students were asked about the nature of science within the context of the teacher-selected topic and also within a context established by three sets of National Geographic pictures used in a uniform way with all students. While each picture was related to a story dealing with science content, the students were only asked to respond to the pictures as a stimulus for talking about the nature of science. The general line of questioning is listed below:

Introduction

General questions about how scientists learn about the teacher-selected topic of the interview to this point. This is used as a transition to specific questions probing their understanding of the nature of science.

Processes & Activities of Scientists

        What do scientists do?

Fallibility of Scientists

        Can they be wrong? Why?

Are there disagreements among scientists?

Why is this true, if they are looking at the same kind of information?

Validation and Proof in the Practice of Science

How would scientists resolve their differences?

Would it be possible for scientists to gather all the information necessary to learn everything there is to know about something? Would the scientists then be considered correct and no one would prove them wrong?

Respect for Scientists

Is it OK that scientists are wrong sometimes?

            The last portion of each interview was devoted to questions concerning student perceptions of the teaching practices of the teacher. Questions were designed to focus student attention on key elements of classroom practice found in the CLES and STEBI. The interview protocol focusing on instruction is outlined below:

Introduction

        What are some typical things that go on in your science class?

Relevance of Instruction

        Is it OK to ask the teacher "why do we have to learn this?"

Teacher Actions

        What does your teacher do that helps you learn science?

Expressing Ideas

Do you ever discuss your own ideas in class and tell the teacher what you are thinking?

What does the teacher do when you express your ideas?

Does this help you learn about the activity?

Peer Discussion

        Do you ever talk to other students about science during science class?

            Do you learn some things from other students when you talk to them during class? Do you learn as much from other students as you do when you talk or listen to the teacher? Anything else about science and science class that you want to talk about that we have not mentioned?

Analysis and Results

            CLES and STEBI data were tabulated for all 16 teachers as a means of contrasting the teaching characteristics of the three teachers selected. Individual teachers varied within particular subscales, but there were no clear trends across the 16 teachers. The two elementary teachers were above one standard deviation from the mean on the CLES and the two STEBI scales while the one middle school teacher (Mr. Lesh) was very close to the mean on all three scales. In Mr. Lesh's view, students had less of a role in determining curriculum and instruction as compared to the perspectives of Mrs. Haver or Mrs. Braeburn. As will be shown from student interviews, students saw Mr. Lesh as having more of a direct role in leading the class.

            The lower scores for Mr. Lesh on both scales of the STEBI can be attributed to responses that indicated he has less direct effect on what students learn than the elementary teachers expressed through their responses. For instance, on the following item, Mrs. Braeburn and Mrs. Haver answered "strongly agree" while Mr. Lesh marked "disagree:"

When a student does better than usual in science, it is often because the teacher exerted a little extra effort.

            For items on both scales that were worded in the negative, Mr. Lesh responded less extremely than the other two. For instance, Mr. Lesh disagreed while Mrs. Braeburn and Mrs. Haver strongly disagreed with the following statement:

Effectiveness in science teaching has little influence on the achievement of students with low motivation.

            Discussions with these teachers concerning the content of the interviews and the nature of this project supports the view that Mr. Lesh sees his 6th grade students as having more responsibility for their learning than either Mrs. Haver (5th grade) or Mrs. Braeburn (4th grade).

            Student interviews were transcribed and coded corresponding to the subsections of the interview protocol as shown above. For instance, that portion of the interview dealing with instruction was coded for four categories: (a) relevance of instruction, (b) teacher actions, (c) expressing ideas, and (d) peer discussion. The nature of science protocol was coded for, (a) processes of science, (b) fallibility of scientists, (c) validation and proof of scientific results, and (d) respect for scientists and the scientific endeavor.

            Interview data concerning student knowledge of concepts taught verified that the students interviewed were aufficiently involved with the class to have experience upon which to base a description and judgment of teaching practices. Although these data are not reported here, in general the student knowledge of the concepts taught by each teacher varied according to teacher perceptions of their achievement. These data showed, for instance, that some of the 4th grade students were quite well versed on the nature of seasons by providing operational descriptions of the effects of tilt, orbit, and rotation on seasons. Other students showed only a facility with vocabulary and a knowledge of classroom activities associated with teaching that topic. The authors were satisfied that the teachers had indeed provided the cross section of students requested.

            Also not reported here are the data pertaining to student understanding of the nature of science. The students expressed a remarkably consistent view of the nature of science that varied little with teacher-perceived achievement, grade level, or gender. Students generally described the activities of scientists as involving investigations into how things work, how the world works, and what things are made of. Their conversational knowledge of science processes was minimal. Regardless of grade students talked only in generic terms such as "classifying," "studying," and occasionally "hypothesizing." No mention was made of controlled experiments, specific steps in data analysis, or even using recently generated conclusions for building new investigations. However, students were very clear and consistent in stating that scientists could be wrong and that error was a natural consequence of inadequate technologies and limited time or knowledge. The fallibility of science was accepted by all students while at the same time they reasoned that other scientists would be able to come up with better information. While they agreed that better information was always forthcoming and that some of the information that science is reporting to them and their teacher may be wrong, the basis for errors was generally a lack of something such as technology, time, or number of scientists. For example, students believed that scientists could not be "super exact" about how a particular fish lives, because there are more fish than there are scientists to study them. Some students only slightly alluded to the idea that new ideas from scientists could lead to more and better information about the world.

            The interview data are presented for each teacher. Comparisons are made between the each teacher's view as expressed through responses to the CLES and relevant student comments.

            Statements that Mr. Lesh's students made during clinical interviews were generally consistent with responses he made on the CLES and observations via video tape of his classroom teaching. Lesh's students said that they typically "find out" about things in class. Finding out was operationalized as discussion with explaining and doing activities. The term "activity" mean a wide variety of things from "doing experiments" or "hands on stuff" to "watching a video." Notice the emphasis on classroom talk. Mr. Lesh's talk eventually emerges as a sign)ficant feature in student perceptions of his teaching.

L5M: Well, it's usually the hands on stuff like when you do experiments with him. Sometimes the reading, but it's easier to understand when you do experiments.

L6F: ...for instance, right now we're finding out how the earth is formed and stuff like that. We're just finding out, we're looking at other things. We're looking at videos and stuff like that, that explain like volcanoes and how they explode and stuff. We just study things. We look at them and we just talk about them and stuff.

L3F: We read out of (science books) sometimes, but most of the time we just talk...like at the beginning of the year we talked about and did activities on planets and stuff; the universe. We just talked and did activities.

            Students said that during classroom talk there were opportunities to express their own ideas and engage in peer discussion. This took various forms that included discussion in small groups and speaking out in the whole class.

L5M: Oh ye, (students express their ideas) a lot....Mr. Lesh tries to help them explain. He tries to explain it to them, but usually we do something to explain what they ask. A lot of times when they ask, it's usually during an experiment that we're doing. Sometimes during greeting.

L3F: We have groups. There's groups and you work with them and you have your own paper, but you work with them. If you have a question or anything, you're supposed to ask whoever is in the group.

            This was consistent with Mr. Lesh's views expressed on the CLES that students learn to communicate through discussion with other students and during class. Mr. Lesh restricted student "questioning" and "complaining" about instructional activities but "almost always" allowed students to discuss science ideas as a part of science class. The following is a paraphrasing of statements from labeled sections of the CLES using Mr. Lesh's responses:

Learning to speak out:

            In the process of being in my class, they learn that it is almost always OK to ask "why do I have to learn this?" But it is only sometimes OK to question my teaching strategies or complain about activities that are confusing. While it is almost always OK for student to express their opinions, it is only sometimes OK for them complain about things that they think are preventing them from learning.

Learning to communicate:

        Students almost always get a chance to talk to other students about solving problems, explaining their own ideas, and asking each other questions about what they think.

        However, not as obvious from Mr. Lesh's perspective was his central role as the mediator of information and ideas in the classroom. Generating understandable explanations was, from the students' point of view, the most important thing he did in helping them learn science.

L4M*: (Mr. Lesh) Explains stuff like gives us an easier explanation. ...like takes the explanation, the video that he gave us, and like made it so we can understand it like using smaller words or recreating their explanation to something we would understand.

L6F: He explains it, he, well, Mr. Lesh makes it seem so easy... He makes it so that we understand it... It's the words he chooses and the way he lets us look at things.

L1F: Well, the teacher, he gives us films, and we take notes on what we hear. He learns things and then he tells them to us about how like maybe this was formed by volcanoes and that kind of thing, and he teaches us, and I think he does a very good job too.

L5M: Well, usually he'll take a break and talk about something we had just read about and tell us more about it that the book doesn't explain.

            Mr. Lesh was central to the process of mediating ideas and processing information. Students felt that they learned from others in their class but they also stated that student attention was inconsistent and sometimes students did not listen to their peers. They looked to Mr. Lesh to create an atmosphere for sharing ideas and provide feedback on their thinking.

L1F: Ya, sometimes, but it's hardly ever that anybody has any (ideas to express) because they're here to learn, so they let the teacher teach.

L4M*: He says something about it like, "Very good," like he or she was right and he talks a little about what they said about. (Or) if they're wrong he says something that it kinda has something to do with the idea, but it's the right idea that they could have been thinking about but not what they were.

            In one anecdote, a female student explained the relationship between using Mr. Lesh as a mediator of student thinking and students' own thinking. She was conscious of the value of his verbalized thought but was also aware that at least she was using that information to help her think on her own.

L6F: ...we don't use his mind, we use our own. We try to think of what happens like how things do things and we use our own minds. We don't just use his, it's like taking advantage of his mind 'cause he knows everything 'cause he's the teacher. It's kind of like we just, we think on our own. We just learn from our own minds and from each other.

            Students were silent concerning their possible input with respect to the content of the class. While Mr. Lesh seemed to express the position that his students were to be, to a large extent, responsible for their own learning, his students did not directly express the view that they were contributing to their own learning. As we shall see, the elementary students were far more confident and outspoken about their role in their own learning. This result is contrary to the way Mr. Lesh expressed his position on the relevant section of the CLES:

Learning to learn:

            Students sometimes help me plan what they are going to learn and which activities are best for them. While students often help decide how much time they spend on activities, they only sometimes help me assess their own learning.

            Mrs. Haver's students found her class "fun so that we aren't bored." Student perceptions were focused on the materials they can "fiddle with." Learning science in her class was finding out what happens as a result of manipulating materials.

H7F: Well, she lets us fiddle with the stuff. And, let's us play with it and try to find out what kind of stuff the thing does... it like helps you, like, learn like what, how this stuff works and stuff. And, like what happens if something occurs. Like if you mix vinegar with baking soda or something.

H6F: Sometimes, most of the times, she hands out stuff and we try to make things. Like balloons and see how stuff and just fiddle around with it and see what you can make with it. Stuff like that.

H5M*: Well, what we usually do is that we usually have an experimenting free for all with some rules involved so that we don't short the whole school's power system or something. But, then we go and we talk about what we learn and what caused that and then we back to experimenting with our new knowledge to see.

            Student statements support Mrs. Haver's views of her own teaching that imply students have a clear voice in the curriculum and instructional strategies. It was equally clear from the interviews that she selected the topics and provided specific materials. However, they were able to play a key role in deciding how materials were to be used and even how much time they spent on the topic. Paraphrasing from the CLES expresses Mrs. Haver's position:

Learning to learn:

            Students often help me plan what they are going to learn and which activities are best for them. Students often help decide how much time they spend on activities and often help me assess

their own learning.

            One student described a classroom episode involving a discussion. While the plan was to spend only a half hour on the topic, the discussion stretched to 90 minutes. She talked as though the students would not let her stop the class for recess.

H4M*: Oh, well, we were talking about communities, I think, and we were talking about what makes a community. And we were going spend a half hour on this, and then we were going to have and hour 'til recess. We spent an hour and a half on it. So we got into it. Finally, one kid just put out the answer and we all accepted that.

            Students said they regularly interacted with other students during Mrs. Haver's instruction as a way of learning science. A typical pattern involved students being asked for their ideas while Mrs. Haver wrote them on the board. Other students expressed agreement or disagreements with these ideas and a discussion followed.

H9M: She kind of goes with (our ideas) and talks to the class about it, and maybe see what they think about it and stuff like that. And, then we discuss it, and then we may (experiment) or we may not.... and then each of us came up with that idea. And it's working.

H6F: Sometimes you have arguments. But, like they say some things are a community. And, they say "Naah, it has to be loving." or something. And, so, Mrs. Haver kind of writes up our questions and then we all talk about it and see which is right.

H4M*: Well, it always starts out with a question. And then a comment. And then we get into a discussion. It always happens when we do that. And only when Mrs. Haver stops us do we.

H5M*: Yeah. A lot of times I get ideas and sometimes I forget them. But, everybody gets to say their ideas, and, then, if everybody says "Yeah, yeah." then we kind of turn to a discussion about that. Or, if it's questionable, we maybe set up an experiment with it.

            Sometimes discussions were stimulated in small group settings and students talked among their peers about science. Students generally associated these interactions with activities.

H6F: Yeah. Sometimes when we get materials to play with and stuff, and figure out ways to do, we're in groups. And, yeah, we talk to each other about how to do it.

H5M*: Yeah. A lot of times when we try an experiment, or something, before we do it, we talk about, like, sometimes I say, I use my knowledge that I already have and put that towards the experiment.

            Peer discussions were an important way of learning science according to some students. When asked if they learned as much science from talking to peers as from Mrs. Haver, some felt that peers were an indispensable part of the instruction.

H9M: ...But, when you're just talking to the teacher, it doesn't come out with the same idea. It kind of comes out better when you talk with your group and stuff, because then you guys can work together.

H6F: Cause if you're alone with your teacher and just one class, or just you. Then you probably wouldn't learn as much because kids would bring up other ideas.

Mrs. Haver's responses to the CLES indicate a strong intention to let students communicate in class and with each other on a regular basis. She selected the option of "almost always" in the items relevant to communicating and speaking out.

Learning to speak out:

            In the process of being in my class, they learn that it is often OK to ask "why do I have to learn this?" It is often OK to question my teaching strategies or complain about activities that are confusing. While it is almost always OK for student to express their opinions, it is only sometimes OK for them complain about things that they think are preventing them from learning.

Learning to communicate:

            Students almost always get a chance to talk to other students about solving problems, about explaining their own ideas, and about asking each other questions about what they think.

            Mrs. Braeburn's students have developed an alternative meaning for the term "science class." As a result of a teaching team developing an integrated curriculum, the students didn't identify with attending a class in science. Instead students saw themselves doing the activities normally associated with a science in time blocks reserved for integrated curriculum or in their math groups. One student separated his concept of science ("beakers and stuff") from what happened in school and said that "we don't have all that stuff." He then came to the startling conclusion that as a result "we do more hands on stuff."

B 11M: Well in our class I don't really think of it as a science class because it's like we don't have all the stuff, all the beakers and stuff. That's kind of why we don't call it a science class cause it's not really a science class....(It's) integrated curriculum. I think it's just different because we do more hands on stuff than I think you wouldn't do; chemistry, we don't do a whole lot of sitting down and listening to the teacher talk and talk and talk. We don't have the science stuff, but we do experiments like the thing with electricity and we did stuff with the weather, we did stuff with the ocean.

            This perspective had an interesting effect on how students saw the role and fit of science in the curriculum. With no "class" being identified with "science" students were comfortable with science-like ideas being included wherever possible.

B8M*: We really don't have a science class. You learn about science in any class that we have around here. We learn about air pressure, we do quite a few experiments. Like the thing we just did with the globe we did and things like that. We had some pop cans that we put into a bucket of water. A few sank and a few were still up on top.

B2M: In our math group that's basically where we have most of our science. That and our integrative curriculum. She tries to bring in as much science as she can and it's all around things, it's not one particular thing. We try to make structures out of straws and see how high they can hold up, we're doing something on polymers right now and it's just lots of different things.

            This more diffused or dispersed view of science learning was perhaps reinforced by the observation by several students that science was stuff brought from home or from outside the classroom either by the teacher or students. The sense of these interviews reiterated the point made in the pervious quote, "(Science is) all around things, it's not one particular thing."

B1M*: Ya, we like take questions and we bring in stuff from home. She asks us questions like, she goes, "Does anybody have any questions," and we ask all our questions so we're all totally clear about it.

B6F: She brings in, like little things in, like today we were learning about trees and she brought in sticks for us to take the bark off and look at and so we can touch it and see how it feels. She talks about stuff and she takes pictures and we learn more about how we do research.

B7F: ...The teacher is up here and she brings in the big stacks of wood, she sets them on the tables and you take one of the microscopes and look inside them. She brings in stuff and she brought this stuff and she showed us stuff and oh god, it's so complicated.

            Expressing ideas in class as well as discussion with peers was associated with activities and experiments similar to Mrs. Haver's students. Students describe the context of hands on activity as a time to say what they are thinking and to get feedback from the teacher. Whereas students found Mrs. Braeburn's feedback to be important, they also felt that considerable learning occurred by talking to other students.

B3M*: Usually she brings out an experiment and says, "What do you think will happen." People like give her as much information as you can on one idea.

B4F: If we have a science project and then we talk about what we think is gonna happen.... She has us all raise our hands. If you say something that is really close or almost on the dot, she'll tell us and she'll tell us even more and give us little hints and it makes us think even more.

            Students felt they learned a lot of science from other students. At times, they saw students as being the best source of information when Mrs. Bracburn did not know how to answer their questions. In a broader sense, students said that it was a good idea to have a variety of opinions because this would strengthen their own thinking.

B2M: Ya, I think we learn more than it would be if she just told us what to do things and we didn't exactly talk. It gives us different ideas; different things to think about. If someone gives you a different opinion about things, it's much better than just going with your opinion and proven wrong and you not knowing why. I think it's about even (learn as much by talking to other students). She knows most of the facts, but we just have like little outcomes of it. We figure out well if that's right, maybe this could be right about a different thing. Doing that connects to another thing.

B4F: Sometimes we do, not a lot. I usually don't. I like to keep my ideas in my head just in case it's a good idea....Ya, we learn a lot more. It's like what we do when we share and someone has a good idea. She tells us and we take that idea and we use it over and over again. It's pretty fun.

            Students expressed the view Mrs. Braeburn's regularly sought student input which was consistent with her own view. Students expressed several ways that their ideas were heard and used in class. They went a bit further by saying that their discussions with each other about the tasks Mrs. Braeburn set for them were as important to their learning as discussions with her. A summary of Mrs. Braeburn's responses to relevant sections of the CLES express her position.

Learning to speak out:

            In the process of being in my class, they learn that it is almost always OK to ask "why do I have to learn this?" It is almost always OK to question my teaching strategies or complain about activities that are confusing. It is almost always OK for students to express their opinions or complain about things that they think are preventing them from learning.

Learning to communicate:

            Students almost always get a chance to talk to other students about solving problems, about explaining their own ideas, and about asking each other questions about what they think.

            The students saw paper work as an integral part of science instruction. Far from being a burden, they saw it as constructive. Written work was a guide for what they were going to learn, were learning, and had learned. Further, the paper work was a vehicle for learning about organization.

B 10M: . ..We study that for awhile and then we have papers that we have to do and stuff. We put it all into like our binders and stuff and then we give it to them (teacher team) and they grade us on how good we were organized and how good we did and stuff.

B5F*: Sometimes we do papers and stuff to see if, to answer questions that we might have. At the beginning of the thing, we write down questions we have and stuff we don't know and stuff we do know and then we try to find out the stuff we don't know during the time we research it. That I think is kind of neat because it's hard to believe more stuff about plants or weather or whatever we're studying than when we came in.

B9F: Ya, she gives us paper work and she gives us tests sometimes. Like she did it with plants and then like she gave us a test at the beginning of the year to show what we know about it. Then at the end when we were finished learning about the stuff she would give us another test and see what new stuff we learned.

            "Paper work" can be seen as Mrs. Braeburn's way of connecting students to the learning process that she designed. Her own view of instruction strongly emphasizes a student role in planning curriculum and instruction. A summary from the CLES expresses her position.

Learning to learn:

            Students almost always help me plan what they are going to learn and often which activities are best for them. Students almost always help decide how much time they spend on activities, and often help me assess their own learning.

Conclusions

            This study of the first of four cohorts revealed a consistency between teacher perceptions and student perceptions of inquiry-oriented instruction. Students valued teacher explanations, questioning, and solicitation of student ideas. In the case of two high achieving students, they detailed lengthy exchanges in class leading to inconclusive results about the science topic under discussion. This highlighted an uncertain state of knowledge that they felt was OK, and expressed belief that they would be interested in examining the ideas later. This was consistent with teacher intentions to solicit student ideas and to generate discussion among students about science concepts. However, there were differences between the one middle school teacher, Mr. Lesh, and the two elementary teachers with respect to the control of subject matter and the nature of instruction.

            Mr. Lesh perceived himself as exerting tighter controls on student input on curriculum and instruction while Mrs. Haver, 5th grade, and Mrs. Braeburn, 4th grade, encouraged more dialogue about the structure and nature of classwork. Student interviews did not reveal this same distinction. For example, the middle school students, with one exception, did not comment on their ability to effect changes in curriculum or instruction. It appeared to be a non-issue. As one student said of the class, "they're here to learn, so they let the teacher teach." However, one student in Mr. Lesh's class did express discouragement while operating within the instructional guidelines and said that she had not found a way to express her frustration in class.

L3F: We had to draw what we saw there. That's hard because in my rock there's dents and stuff like this and you can't draw that. The really talented people can, but I can't....we had to think (hypothesize) what it looked like and you can't really get much from a gray picture with just lines. So it was hard to do that. (What I wanted to do was) actually be able to look at it through the jeweler's loop or something without drawing it first.

            She expressed hesitant agreement that she could express this problem in class and that Mr. Lesh would let her proceed in her own way. This was an isolated comment in an otherwise uniform endorsement of Mr. Lesh's teaching practice by the seven students interviewed. Even though the students expressed a positive view of teaching practice that was consistent with Mr. Lesh, there were some discrepancies across grade levels. The 6th grade students cast their teacher in the role of mediator of information and ideas that was not implied in the CLES responses by Mr. Lesh. The 4th and 5th grade students did not make the same observations. While the middle school students were willing to "let the teacher teach," this subtle statement that students were not providing input into class structure and content was not perceived by Mr. Lesh. A logical extension of this view over the next few years of school would imply that students rationalize that they actually have less of a role in their own learning than they did in the elementary grades. This view directly contradicts Mr. Lesh's position that students at this age have more responsibility for their own learning. This contradiction between student and teacher perception of the nature of student involvement in the instructional process has direct implications for inquiryoriented instruction and will be discussed below.

            Students differed with respect to how often they questioned the relevance of instruction, but all agreed that questions of relevance would be greeted with respect and in some cases even encouraged by their teacher. There was consistency in the presence and perceived value of activities or hands-on instruction. Teacher actions were usually cast in terms of using an activity as a stimulus for discussion and questioning. Students reported being able to express their ideas class although they did not take equal advantage of these opportunities. Within the 27 interviews there was no obvious relationship between gender or teacher-perceived, achievement level and student participation in classroom discourse. Students used and valued discussions with peers about science and generally agreed with the statement that they learned as much from each other as they did from the teacher.

            Student thinking about the nature of science paralleled their experience in class where they were able to express their point of view and hear the ideas of others. Data not reported here showed that these students were able to discuss basic tenets about the nature of science. This convincing, though elementary, level of understanding of the nature of science provided background for student comments on the nature of inquiry-oriented instruction. For instance, students considered scientists and the knowledge they develop to be tentative and believed that it would change as more people studied the problem. Students did not, however, express much understanding of science processes nor did they say anything about the role of theory and hypothesis in directing the work of science. This selective knowledge about the nature of science probably affected their ability to perceive the broader intentions behind teaching practices designed to engage students in inquiry.

            These results have implications for studying the nature of inquiry-oriented instruction at the upper elementary and middle levels. The participatory nature of instruction as stimulus for class discussion supported a view of the tentativeness of scientific knowledge and its dependence upon useful and accurate information about the environment. Although initial observations of these teachers did not imply that they had any special knowledge about the nature of science, their orientation to instruction suggested that they operated from an basis at least as sophisticated as their students and were able to convey that perspective through instruction. The shift away from direct participation in the nature and content of science class with the middle school teacher raises questions about the cause and extent of this shift in student perceptions of science instruction. The relationship between student and teacher changes dramatically by the 6th grade that may signal the way classroom instruction is interpreted by students.

References

Enochs, L. G. & Riggs, I. M. (1990). Further development of an Elementary Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument: A preservice elementary scale. School Science and Mathematics. 90, 695-706.

Flick, L. (1995). Complex Instruction in Complex Classrooms: A Synthesis of Research on Inquiry Teaching Methods and Explicit Teaching Strategies, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching San Francisco, CA April 22-25, 1995.

Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching~ 29, 331-360.

National Research Council (1994). National science education standards. draft. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Taylor, Fraser, & White, (1994). CLES: An instrument for monitoring the development of constructivist learning environments. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.