Running head: SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED KNOWLEDGE
The Role of Classroom Management in Developing Socially Constructed Knowledge in Inquiry Science
Erin E. Peters
EDRS 810: Education Research Methods
Fall
2005
Objective
Science educators agree that inquiry science is a quality method for teaching students of all ages science content as well as providing an opportunity for small groups or whole classes to socially construct scientific knowledge (AAAS, 1993; NRC, 1996). One barrier teachers experience in establishing an inquiry setting in a classroom is the need to reeducate students to learn so that the teacher is not the sole distributor of knowledge. In an inquiry setting, students need to have the skills to work collectively in negotiating ideas rather than reiterating what teachers or other authorities have told them. Since the process of inquiry is not didactic, teachers need to learn how to structure class so that they are no longer the sole authority figure with regard to knowledge and to give students the skills and opportunity to work together to construct knowledge. This case study examined the structures that an exemplary seventh grade life science teacher created to manage her class in an inquiry investigation and the students’ reactions to this unique learning setting. If classroom management structures could be identified and taught to other teachers, then perhaps similar outcomes could be produced and provide an environment that encouraged the construction of knowledge through inquiry.
Theoretical
Framework
Teacher classroom practices represent an epistemological posture about science from which students, in part, draw from to develop their notion of value on their own knowledge and the impact social interactions have on the construction of knowledge (Larochelle & Desautels, 1991). Traditional didactic teaching features telling and showing scientific phenomena as the knowledge that counts, rather than knowledge that is developed through social interaction. By continuing to teach in a didactic approach, teachers reflect a type of socialization that occurs in formal educational settings (Zeichner & Gore, 1990). Meaningful learning requires connection to student prior knowledge, and learning tasks that have substance. On the contrary, rote learning from didactic delivery of information is not related to student experiences with objects or events. Hodson (1988) calls for a break in the vicious circle permitting reproduction of traditional school epistemology concerning science. When students view science as static, they wait until facts become available to them instead of discovering and integrating the science ideas themselves (Chin & Brown, 2000). In science, this didactic transmission of knowledge perpetuates the idea that scientific knowledge is a collection of facts in their final form. Didactic teaching leaves students confused when they are taught that science is a collection of facts in their final form, yet scientists understand this collection of facts to be tentative. This confusion among students can be avoided if teachers understood how inquiry can be used to teach knowledge about science instead of merely scientific knowledge. Science educators face the challenge how to design science instruction that reinforces that scientific knowledge will inevitably change (Duschl, 1990).
The management structures teachers plan in order to direct classroom activities is an essential part of setting the stage for student learning. The teachers’ role in an inquiry classroom is to develop investigations that encourage social construction of knowledge, to monitor student actions, and to react to classroom events (Beeth & Hewson, 1999). In their study of exemplary science teaching practices, Beeth and Hewson found that teachers can foster scientific construction of knowledge by facilitating progress in directions that are productive for students and that are consistent with his or her plans for teaching.
Research
Questions
This study is intended to explore the mechanisms in a seventh-grade science classroom that has an exemplary management structure for the purpose of inquiry science by asking the following research questions: 1) What factors lead to a teacher’s decision to conduct inquiry? 2) What classroom management structures must teachers create in the planning stages of an inquiry unit? 3) How will students react to the classroom management structures during an inquiry unit?
Researcher
Perspective
As I attend profession conferences and read practitioner-oriented books, I have noticed in the past five years that the ability to teach using an inquiry style is a sought after skill. Learning strands at national science teacher conferences are often structured to facilitate ways to incorporate inquiry into the classroom. Since inquiry in the classroom uses science process skills such as observing, collecting data and making conclusions, it occurred to me that teachers who set up their classroom so that students are free to explore are more successful in teaching inquiry science. I think that teachers need to retool their students’ ideas about how classrooms operate when teaching inquiry. Students often come to class expecting to have the teacher provide all of the information and they take a more passive role in learning it. I try my best as a classroom teacher to teach with an inquiry style, and I find that my students have a great deal of cognitive dissonance when they enter my classroom. They are used to the teacher asking a question, one student answers the question, and the teacher give a response to the correctness of the question. In my classroom, I give students more responsibility in the role of learning. I wanted to find out if other teachers who teach inquiry science have similar styles.
When I have been to professional development workshops I have observed the masses of teachers clamoring for any information about inquiry. Inquiry is such an amorphous idea, but it is an important one. My discussions with other teachers from around the country reveal that teachers understand that inquiry is important because it is an authentic way to teach science, but teachers are having a difficult time enacting inquiry learning with their students. Some of the teachers have identified the lack of time and the lack of resources as barriers to teaching inquiry, but I suspect there is more behind conducting inquiry in the science classroom than time and resources.
I believe that teachers who teach in an open, inquiry method have a deeper understanding of the nature of science, and their students have a better understanding of how science acts as a discipline. Teachers who are able to see the big ideas in science probably know something about how scientists think, and insist that their students think in the same way. Teachers who are more focused on smaller, factual knowledge probably do not offer opportunities for inquiry in the classroom. Teachers who are focused more on science being a collection of facts probably do not have time to allow students to openly explore ideas through open ended experiments. I chose to observe a teacher who is known for her inquiry style because I think she has already developed somewhat of an understanding of how her classroom set up helps her to teach inquiry. From my experience, I know that I was more concerned with factual knowledge early in my teaching career and that students were less likely to take away universal scientific understandings.
Method
Design
The case study was completed with a seventh grade life science teacher who was well respected among her peers and supervisors for conducting open and guided inquiry consistently and successfully in her classroom. The participant was chosen because she had 5 years of experience in teaching and had adequate knowledge of the biological sciences. During the time period of the study, the teacher conducted a 4-week unit on genetics. The researcher is a teacher at the same school as the participant, so she was familiar with the environment and procedures of the school. An interview with the teacher which probed beliefs about science teaching in general, instructional planning, and intended outcomes of the unit was conducted before the unit of instruction. Field notes were taken at three points during the unit of instruction (20 classes at 47 minutes each) and teacher resource materials as well as student materials were analyzed. An interview with the teacher followed the unit of instruction, which probed student behaviors, instructional outcomes and previous experiences.
A focus group randomly chosen by the teacher consisted of 6 out of the 26 students observed was conducted to identify student ideas about the structures in the class and their influence on learning science. Field notes and interview transcripts were coded using an iterative process. Initially, the field notes and interview transcripts were read in totality to get a sense of the entirety of the data. Then codes were established that were verbatim from the notes and transcripts (Emerson, Fretz & Shaw, 1995). Several iterations of categorizing the verbatim codes revealed organizing codes such as minimizing class rules, the endurance of big ideas, science as experiential, and the value of teamwork. The validity of the data was checked by having other researchers review the categorization of the codes, considering other possibilities for conclusions, utilizing data that reoccurred throughout the data sources, and having frequent member checks. (Maxwell, 1996).
Before the study began, I “hung out” in her room to get a general feel for the unit before I attempted any interviews or observations. I explained to Jen (a pseudonym for the teacher) how qualitative studies are different than randomized experiments in order to clarify intentions, and discussed the role of interviewing as an important data source. We discussed how the interviews would take place, and that she would probably feel that the interview was a very one-sided conversation. I also described to her that this was not a comparative study and that the goal of this study was to tell a story about how she thought about science. We talked about her feelings regarding being exposed during the study, and she decided that the opportunity for learning outweighed any insecurity she had about revealing her thoughts. She told me that she was used to having people observe her class and felt that education should be an open experience. She felt that isolating yourself in teaching was counterproductive, and teachers who isolate themselves fail to learn very much from their limited experiences.
When I asked Jen to be part of the study, I let her know before the study began that I wanted to see some exemplary inquiry lessons. I was able to observe the introductory lesson, a research lesson, and the culminating activity. The observations provided a good framework for the structure of Jen’s classroom and I was able to do member checks with Jen and with her students. I asked Jen to select up to six students to participate in a focus group and she randomly selected students for me. She selected two female students and four male students who ranged from low ability to high ability during the unit.
Participants
In considering possible participants, I would have to choose a sixth or seventh grade teacher to observe, due to scheduling issues. My choices narrowed to science teachers because of the decision of my topic involving the nature of science, so I had six teachers to invite to participate in my study, three sixth grade teachers and three seventh grade teachers. I knew from other interactions, that the sixth grade teachers in my building are very private about the science that they teach. In the past they were scrutinized for not being oriented to “hard science” such as using data and teaching more abstract scientific ideas. I knew that I might get a better response from the seventh grade teachers, so I considered which of the seventh grade teachers were vocal about teaching inquiry in their class. The very first teacher I asked was happy to participate and often visited my room to ask when the study was going to begin. She was very excited to learn more about her practice.
The student focus group was chosen randomly from Jen’s class list. Six students, two girls and four boys were chosen from the class period that I observed. The cognitive performance of the students varied and the focus group was conducted after the unit of study was completed. The questions focused on comparisons with the rules and structure of science classes from other teachers, comparisons of rules and structures in core classes other than science, and details of structures in their current science class related to their learning outcomes.
Setting
This
study took place in a middle school serving students from grades six to eight
in a metropolitan area located in the mid-Atlantic region of the
Data
Collection Methods
Data were collected using semi-structured personal interviews with the teacher before and after classroom observations, semi-structured focus group discussion after the genetics unit with six students, observations of classroom activities from the beginning, middle and end of the genetics unit, and artifacts from the genetics unit that included student products, teacher plans and handouts. Questioning protocol can be found in Figure 1. The first teacher interview was held before the genetics unit was taught. The classroom observations and artifact collection took place during the next four weeks. The follow-up teacher interview and the student focus group were held after the culminating activity for the genetics unit was completed.
Data
Collection Procedures
The first data source from my project came from the initial teacher interview. I asked questions that were very broad and indirect regarding the nature of science and how Jen viewed science as a discipline. We met on a Friday afternoon in her classroom and the interview was comfortable, but a little rushed since I was learning how to conduct effective interviews. In my rush to establish how Jen thought about the nature of science and inquiry, I did not consider how my questions might be perceived. Teachers live in the present and have a variety of concrete issues to deal with at a moments notice. They rarely get the opportunity to reflect on their own actions because of time constraints, let alone ponder about the philosophy of science. Data I obtained were thin compared to data I obtained in later observations and interviews.
Three classroom observations were the next data sources in the study. I was fortunate to observe the beginning of a genetics unit, a student research day, and the culminating activity, a supreme-court style trial regarding issues in genetics. Each time I observed, the teacher was welcoming and the students paid little attention to me. They were often so busy in their activity, that they did not have the opportunity to notice me. I stayed out of the way of activities and was still able to move around the room to obtain multiple perspectives. I had described my intentions to Jen before I entered her classroom, so the transaction went smoothly. Field notes were composed first from a board perspective to describe the setting of the class and then from a narrow perspective, focusing on personal interactions. The first observation was during a Socratic seminar, so the whole class was involved in the same activity. Half of the class was having a discussion, while the other half reflected on that discussion. It was structured in two parts: an inner circle and an outer circle. I followed the student interactions and shifted to the teacher role, then back to the student interactions.
The second class I observed was a student research day. I had a glimpse at how students gather information individually and how the teacher interacts with students when they are working independently. Since the students were working at tables of four, I was able to take a look at the class as a whole, visit the groups as I felt necessary and intermittently observe Jen interacting with individual students. The students were busy preparing for their roles in the upcoming trial. The feel of this class was different because the students were working on an individual paper rather than discussing issues as a whole class. Students had different learning styles and were at different levels of understanding. Observing this type of lesson gave me the opportunity to witness one-on-one student and teacher interactions.
The third class was a special event, the mock supreme-court trial that addressed issues in genetics. It was held in the library of the school and the entire team of students attended for three consecutive class periods, instead of the usual structure which was approximately 25 students meeting for one class period as in the first and second observation. This observation revealed more of the assessment structures that were in place to elicit inquiry and gave me an indication of the final products that students produced.
The student focus group was the next data source in the study. I collected the students from Jen’s classroom and took the six randomly selected students to my classroom for the focus group. My questions were structured so that I could validate the information I observed in the class and the information I had already gathered from Jen regarding classroom practices. Although I focused my questions on concrete practices in the class, the students began to describe their understanding of the nature of science during the discussion. The concepts of the nature of science took a new place in the study as the outcomes produced by deliberate classroom structures constructed by the teacher.
Rather than focusing on generic, broad questions, the follow-up teacher interview questions focused on concrete examples. Changing the focus of questions elicited more valuable data from Jen. From these data I was able to take a closer look at why she structures the class for inquiry and how Jen’s past school experiences influenced her decisions in the present.
I asked Jen for a set of the handouts that she gave to students throughout the entire unit. I looked through them to find any structures that were not clear to me during the observations or interviews.
Proposed
Data Analysis
In analyzing my data, I will remain loyal to the notion that writing up full field notes should occur within twenty four hours of the observation. This will contribute to more detailed notes for the observations. I will audio record all of the interviews and focus group discussions and translate them verbatim through software called “Transana.” When I print out my field notes and transcriptions, I wide the left margin so I will be able to code the text easily.
I will read through my field notes and transcriptions prior to coding them. As I code the field notes and transcriptions, I will write reflective memos so that I maintain the level of detail needed for a full analysis. As I code line by line, I will try to stay close to the actual text, rather than trying to make the ideas more abstract. By the end of the coding, I will be able to condense the detail into more abstract codes because I will start to see some big ideas develop.
After
I code the text line by line, a matrix will be composed for each document listing
the coding categories. If very broad categories are coded from the beginning,
some of the ideas may get left out.
Implications
Student-initiated
science explorations under the conditions of uncertainty should be valued so
that students are able to construct ways of investigating and knowing in
science (Crawford, Kelly & Brown, 2000). Currently, teachers use discourse
processes that position science and science teachers as authorities (Moje,
1997). Giving teachers tangible processes for conducting student-initiated
science explorations is a step in moving beyond traditional teacher as sole
authority teaching models. Having students construct their knowledge by social
means makes learning science more authentic and helps students to reconcile the
conflict they experience when learning that science knowledge is tentative. Socially
constructing knowledge in an inquiry setting is one way of making science less
obscure for students. Teachers are inexperienced at managing discussions that
allow for different viewpoints on scientific ideas to be argued (Driver, 1989),
so identifying tangible structures in classroom management could help teacher
become more experienced at this task.
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science
literacy.
Beeth, M. E. & Hewson, P. W. (1999). Learning goals in an exemplary science teacher’s
practice:
Cognitive and social factors in teaching for conceptual change. Science
Education. 60, 738-823.
Chin, C. & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface
approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 109-138.
Crawford, T., Kelly, G. J. & Brown, C. (2000). Ways of knowing beyond facts and laws
of science: An ethnographic investigation of student engagement in scientific
practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 37, 237-258.
Driver, R. (1989). The construction of scientific knowledge in school classrooms. In R.
Millar
(ed.) Doing science: Images of science in
science education.
Falmer Press.
Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring
science education: The importance of theories and
their development.
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I, & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes.
Hodson, D. (1988). Toward a philosophically more valid
science curriculum. Science
Education, 72 (1): 19-40.
Larochelle, M. & Desautels, J. (1991). The epistemological turn in science education:
The return
of the actor. In Duit, R., Goldberg, F. & Niedderer, H. (eds.) Research
In Physics Learning: Theoretical
Issues and Empirical Studies (pp. 155-175).
Maxwell, J.A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Moje, E. (1997). Exploring discourse, subjectivity, and knowledge is a chemistry class.
Journal of Classroom Interaction, 32, 35-44.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind
in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Zeichner, K. M. & Gore, J. (1990). Teacher
socialization. In
Figure 1: Semi-structured Interview and Focus Group Questions
Teacher Participant Pre-Observation Interview Script
Teacher Participant
Post-Observation Interview Script
Student Participant
Interview Script