Summer Science Inquiry

Linking Inquiry and Classroom Practice
Summer Science Institutes: Inquiry-Based Professional Development with Authentic Research Experiences

In 2001, after 13 years of teaching mostly Advanced Placement science classes at the secondary level in the US Southwest, I transferred to a small, rural PK-8 school in a Midwestern state. The student population was relatively low socioeconomically and 86% American Indian. I realized that many of the expository teaching methods I had employed previously with older, higher-level thinking students were simply not effective for my new students. I began to seek alternative teaching approaches to the Inform, Verify, and Practice (IVP) modality I had been subjected to as a student, and had in turn utilized as a primary form of instruction as a teacher. In 2005 my administrators passed to me a notice concerning a summer science institute coming up at a state university. I applied and was accepted for the next summer. The program was a collaboration between the school’s education college and natural history museum, and covered one week of the summer, in a residential format. I was intrigued by the institute’s paradigm of inquiry-based professional development coupled with authentic research experiences mentored by practicing scientists, and the utilization of appropriate technologies. The program’s stated goals were to increase the scientific literacy and efficacy of the state’s elementary and middle school teachers through actual research experiences and an approach to science teaching that translated these experiences into classroom practice. The program’s theoretical base was grounded in the nature of science and inquiry, state and national science education standards, the nature of the learner, and the promotion of critical thinking skills. The workshop was conceived in response to a lack of interest and proficiency among the state’s students in science and math at the time, especially at the elementary and middle school levels. Special emphasis was placed on teachers of “transescents” or middle year students, who are at a critical developmental junction in terms of how they see themselves regarding science and mathematics, as well as college majors and careers in these areas. The data and experience suggested traditional expository text book teaching with cook book labs was not adequate, and many students were not being exposed to the true investigative nature of science, nor were they developing the critical thinking skills which are the stated central purpose of American education. The education department of the university’s natural history museum has a variety of programs that encourage science learning, both formally and informally, for teachers and students, as well as the general public. There is strong history of collaboration and cooperation between the museum and other departments within the university, and especially the college of education.

Upon arrival at the campus the 25 teacher participants were provided excellent on-campus accommodations, with most meals provided, and a stipend was arranged as well. Mornings were occupied working in groups of 3-4 teachers on an authentic research project mentored by practicing scientists from the museum, university, and other local agencies. Projects ranged from investigations of food webs in nearby aquatic habitats to fish reproductive habits to an analysis of insect populations, and the institute culminated with creation of poster and slide shows, and presentations of the projects in a symposium format. We utilized field sites, laboratories, and museum collections and engaged in all aspects of investigations from developing testable hypotheses to collecting and analyzing data to interpreting and communicating results. Afternoons were overseen by university science education professors and devoted to development of the theoretical base and building a link between research experiences and application to science teaching and curriculum development. These modalities were accomplished by creating and utilizing new curricula and carrying out pre-existing ones, along with discussion and the incorporation of applicable technologies. The idea emerged that constructivist learning cycle approaches to teaching science were most effective and supported by all aspects of the relevant theory base, and teachers needed to be comfortable with this and in turn apply it in their classrooms.

I returned to my classroom the next semester, excited and motivated to begin using what I had learned that summer. I saw encouraging results right away, as my students were allowed to gather solid data themselves, I helped them construct concepts from their data, and especially when they expanded and applied their new knowledge through any number of related activities that helped make connections to their environment and interests, including sports, health, cars, food, and so on. Student attitudes toward science improved, achievement increased, and they looked forward to what we were doing in class. As a veteran teacher I recognized right away my students were experiencing more “light bulb” moments as previously difficult concepts became clear to them. My tactile and kinesthetic students were self-motivated to actively gather data and science became fun and understandable to them. I began to spread the word among my colleagues and administrators, and we as a school adopted a curriculum more suited to this teaching approach. As I mentioned, the student population was mostly Native American, and as a citizen of the Cherokee nation myself I began to consider the larger implications of what I was experiencing. Half of Native American students fail to graduate high school, and few go on to university. Even fewer enter into mathematics and science related majors and careers. It seemed through this teaching approach that science and math could be part of the impetus to educational and career success for these and other students, and not part of the barriers. I developed a mind set that I could compound the effectiveness of this teaching approach by returning to school and seeking a PhD in science education to train other teachers, so I began the process of entering the university that sponsored the summer science institute I had attended.

In the summer of 2007 I was able to return to the summer science institute as a graduate student and assistant facilitator, and also to help with research that would attempt to gauge the effectiveness of the workshops. I chose three existing quantitative instruments that would evaluate the participants’ science teaching efficacy, and understanding of the nature of science and of the learning cycle approach to teaching. I developed two more instruments to consider the teachers’ comprehension of the investigative process of science and their approach to lesson development and implementation. These instruments were all administered in a pre- and post-workshop manner, and seemed to suggest gains in all areas, with the exception of science teaching self-efficacy. This may be due to the teachers realizing there is much more to effective science teaching than they had imagined, prior to their participation in the workshop. I am also conducting a follow-up qualitative examination through the use of surveys. Participating teachers are reporting results similar to what I had experienced at my school, as reflected in these comments:
“I learned how to properly engage students using inquiry learning. I was able to get some good ideas and work with other teachers…”
“I am now asking more leading questions instead of giving straight answers…”
“The students discover the answer to the inquiry they are doing…”
“My students this year are noticeably more adept at measuring for accuracy and utilizing metric units after inquiry-based instruction…”
“The students are DOING instead of listening and watching, and have an improvement of attitudes…”

However, It is not enough to provide teachers with research experiences. The goal is make the pedagogical connection in the classroom between the investigative process of science and its application in lesson development and implementation. The learning cycle approach seems to provide the linkage that translates inquiry into actual learning, and the critical thinking skills that will serve all students in all areas. These summer science institutes permit teachers to better understand the nature of science and inquiry-based teaching approaches, as well as the relationship between them. Teachers become more comfortable with the scientific method and inquiry, and teachers are more willing to engage students in data collecting activities. In turn, facilitation of concept development and introduction of appropriate terminology, and expansion and application of these concepts, resolve the "disconnect" between teachers’ understanding of inquiry and its actual application in the classroom.