Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Observing Inquiry-Based Learning Environments Using the Scholastic Inquiry Observation Instrument

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study provides psychometric data for the Scholastic Inquiry Observation instrument and 6 years of research data from an inquiry-based professional training program. The rating instrument provides a resource for measuring 16 inquiry-related learning activities based on level of inquiry implementation and level of active student engagement. Observational data at the item level can be useful for inquiry-based professional development programs. Four scale score options are available for inquiry summarization (Inquiry Implementation for Hypothesis Usage; Implementation of Inquiry Communication; Student Engagement in Hypothesis Usage; Student Engagement in Inquiry Communication) and two scales measuring Student Interest and Mastery of Objectives. Comparisons of the types of inquiry most commonly used and those with the highest levels of active participation by middle school students in science and math classrooms are provided.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., . . . Tuan, H. L. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: Project 2061. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barthlow, M. J., & Watson, S. B. (2014). The effectiveness of process-oriented guided inquiry learning to reduce alternative conceptions in secondary chemistry. School Science and Mathematics, 114(5), 246–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beane, J. (Ed.). (1995). Toward a coherent curriculum: The 1985 ASCD yearbook. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-David, A., & Zoohar, A. (2009). Contribution of meta-strategic knowledge to scientific inquiry learning. International Journal of Science Education, 31(12), 1657–1682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandon, P. R., Taum, A. K., Young, D. B., & Pottenger, F. M., III. (2008). The development and validation of the inquiry science observation coding sheet. Evaluation and Program Planning, 31(3), 247–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandon, P. R., Young, D. B., Pottenger, F. M., III., & Taum, A. K. (2009). The inquiry science implementation scale: Development and applications. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(6), 1135–1147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buch, N. J., & Wolff, T. F. (2000). Classroom teaching through inquiry. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 126(3), 105–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Center for Science Education, The Inquiry Science Project. (2006). Technical report 2: Conceptualizing inquiry science instruction. Newton, MA: Education Development Center, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, H.-P., Chen, C.-C., Guo, G.-J., Cheng, Y.-J., Lin, C.-Y., & Jen, T.-H. (2011). The development of a competence scale for learning science: Inquiry and communication. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(5), 1213–1233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cianciolo, J., Flory, L., & Atwell, J. (2006). Evaluating the use of inquiry-based activities: Do student and teacher behaviors really change? Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(3), 50–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, D. K., & Spillane, J. P. (1993). Policy and practice: The relationship between governance and instruction. In S. H. Furhman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system (pp. 35–95). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope, 23(6), 42–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Common Core State Standards Initiative (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, D.C.: National Governor’s Association for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, T., & Van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drayton, B., & Falk, J. (2001). Tell-tale signs of the inquiry-oriented classroom. NASSP Bulletin, 85(623), 24–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R., Schwingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3 & 4), 391–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heflich, D. A., Dixon, J. K., & Davis, K. S. (2001). Taking it to the field: The authentic integration of mathematics and technology in inquiry-based science instruction. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 20(1), 99–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herron, M. D. (1971). The nature of scientific inquiry. School Review, 79(2), 171–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (1996). Laboratory work as scientific method: Three decades of confusion and distortion. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(2), 115–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keselman, A. (2003). Supporting inquiry learning by promoting normative understanding of multivariable causality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(9), 898–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J. S., Czerniak, C. M., & Berger, C. (2003). Teaching science in elementary and middle school classrooms: A project-based approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., & Pearsall, S. (1998). Relations between metastrategic knowledge and strategic performance. Cognitive Development, 13(2), 227–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotter, C., Yow, J. A., & Peters, T. T. (2014). Building a community of practice around inquiry instruction through a professional development program. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madill, H. M., Amort-Larson, G., Wilson, S. A., Brintnell, S. G., Taylor, E., & Esmail, S. (2001). Inquiry-based learning: An instructional alternative for occupational therapy education. Occupational Therapy International, 8(3), 198–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F. (2004). Keys to teaching the nature of science. The Science Teacher, 71(9), 24–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadelson, L. S. (2009). How can true inquiry happen in K-16 science education? Science Educator, 18(1), 48–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. doi:10.17226/4962.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. doi:10.17226/9596.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/10126.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, cross-cutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/13165.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nybo, L., & May, M. (2015). Effectiveness of inquiry-based learning in an undergraduate exercise physiology course. Advances in Physiology Education, 39(2), 76–80. doi:10.1152/advan.00161.2014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (2016). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework: Science, reading, mathematic, and financial literacy. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264255425-en.

  • Prince, M., & Felder, R. (2007). The many faces of inductive teaching and learning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(5), 14–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, K., & Garnier, H. (2007). What science teaching looks like: An international perspective. Educational Leadership, 64(4), 16–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1991). Science for all Americans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawada, D., Piburn, M., Falconer, K., Turley, J., Benford, R., & Bloom, I. (2000). Reformed teaching observation protocol (Report no. IN00–1). Tempe, AZ: Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers.

  • Sawada, D., Piburn, M., Judson, E., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., & Bloom, I. (2002). Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: The reformed teaching observation protocol. School Science and Mathematics, 102(6), 245–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J. J. Schwab & P. F. Brandwein (Eds.), The teaching of science (pp. 1–103). London, UK: Oxford University Press.

  • So, W. W.-M. (2012). Connecting mathematics in primary science inquiry projects. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(2), 385–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunal, D. W., Sunal, C. S., Sundberg, C., & Wright, E. L. (2008). The importance of laboratory work and technology in science teaching. In D. W. Sunal, E. L. Wright, & C. Sundberg (Eds.), The impact of the laboratory and technology on learning and teaching in science K-12 (pp. 1–28). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tafoya, E., Sunal, D., & Knecht, P. (1980). Assessing inquiry potential: A tool for curriculum decision makers. School Science and Mathematics, 80(1), 43–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veenman, M. V. J. (2012). Metacognition in science education: Definitions, constituents, and their intricate relation to cognition. In A. Zohar & Y. J. Dori (Eds.), Metacognition in science education: Trends in current research (pp. 21–36). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Secker, C. E., & Lissitz, R. W. (1999). Estimating the impact of instructional practices on student achievement in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1110–1126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wainright, C., Flick, L., Morrell, P., & Schepige, A. (2004). Observation of reform teaching in undergraduate level mathematics and science courses. School Science and Mathematics, 104(7), 322–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woods, D. R. (2014). Problem-oriented learning, problem-based learning, problem-based synthesis, process oriented guided inquiry learning, peer-led team learning, model-eliciting activities, and project-based learning: Which is best for you? Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, 53(13), 5337–5354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Jamie Hawley, Jennifer Killian, Amy Robertson, and Wallace Dent Gitchel for their contributions to data collection. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation GK-12 grants (#0538645, #0139570). The findings and conclusions represented in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Rehabilitation, Human Resources, and Communication Disorders, College of Education and Health Professions, University of Arkansas, 250 Graduate Education Building, Fayetteville, AR, 72701, USA

    Ronna C. Turner

  2. Department of Information Systems, Walton College of Business, University of Arkansas, 214 Walton College of Business Building, Fayetteville, AR, 72701, USA

    Elizabeth A. Keiffer

  3. Department of Physics, Fulbright College of Arts and Sciences, University of Arkansas, 225 Physics Building, Fayetteville, AR, 72701, USA

    Gregory J. Salamo

Authors
  1. Ronna C. Turner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elizabeth A. Keiffer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gregory J. Salamo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ronna C. Turner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Turner, R.C., Keiffer, E.A. & Salamo, G.J. Observing Inquiry-Based Learning Environments Using the Scholastic Inquiry Observation Instrument. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 16, 1455–1478 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9843-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9843-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation