Is inquiry possible in light of accountability?: A Quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction

Science Education

Volumn 94, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 577-616

  Blanchard, Margaret R ^a   Southerland, Sherry A ^b   Osborne, Jason W ^a   Sampson, Victor D ^b   Annetta, Leonard A ^a   Granger, Ellen M ^c  

^a NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Florida State University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954745758     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.20390     Document Type: Article

References (103)

1. Abrams, E. (2007). Assessing student understanding in an inquiry-based learning environment. In E. Abrams, S. A. Southerland, & P. Silva (Eds.), Inquiry in the science classroom: Challenges and opportunities. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
2. Abrams, E., Southerland, S. A., & Evans, C. A. (2007). Inquiry in the classroom: Necessary components of a useful definition. In E. Abrams, S. A. Southerland, & P. Silva (Eds.), Inquiry in the science classroom: Realities and opportunities. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
3. Abrams, E., Southerland, S. A., & Evans, C. (2007). An introduction to inquiry. In E. Abrams, S. A. Southerland, & P. Silva (Eds.), Inquiry in the classroom: Realities and opportunities (pp. 1-13). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
4. Aikenhead, G., Ryan, A., & Fleming, R. (1989). Views on science-technology-society (from CDN.mc.5). Saskatoon, Saskatche wan, Canada: Department of Curriculum Studies, University of Saskatchewan.
5. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
6. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2000). Designs for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
7. Amrein, A., & Berliner, D. (2002). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18). Retrieved June 3, 2008, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18/.
8. Anderson, R. D. (2007). Inquiry as an organizing theme for science education. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 807-830). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9. Barkesdale-Ladd, M. A., & Thomas, K. F. (2000). What's at stake in high-stakes testing: Teachers and parents speak out. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 384-397.
10. Barton, A. C. (2003). Teaching science for social justice. New York: Teachers College Press.
11. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148.
12. Blanchard, M., Southerland, S. A., & Granger, D. E. (2009). No silver bullet for inquiry: Making sense of teacher change following an inquiry-based research experience for teachers. Science Education, 93(2), 322-360.
13. Blanchard, M. R. (2006) Assimilation or transformation? An analysis of change in ten secondary science teachers following an inquiry-based research experience for teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
14. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33, 3-15.
15. Bybee, R. W. (1993). Reforming science education. New York: Teachers College Press.
16. Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Children's acquisition of the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70(5), 1098-1120.
17. Colburn, A. (2000a, January). What teacher educators need to know about inquiry-based instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Akron, OH.
18. Colburn, A. (2000b). An inquiry primer. Science Scope, 23(6), 42-44.
19. Collins, A. (1998). National Science Education Standards: A political document. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 711-727.
20. Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916-937.
21. Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 613-642.
22. Dean, D., & Kuhn, D. (2006). Direct instruction vs. discovery: The long view. Science Education, 91, 384-397.
23. Deboer, G. E. (2002). Student-centered teaching in a standards-based world: Finding a sensible balance. Science & Education, 11, 405-417.
24. Finkel, L., Greene, K., & Rios, J. (2007). In E. Abrams, S. A. Southerland, & P. Silva (Eds.), Inquiry in the classroom: Realities and opportunities. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
25. Firestone, W. A., Monfils, L., & Camalli, G. (2001, April). Pressure, support, and instructional change in the context of a state testing program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
26. Flick, L., & Lederman, N. G. (Eds.). (2004). Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
27. Frechtling, J. A., Sharp, L., Carey, N., & Westat, N. V. (1995). Teacher enhancement programs: A perspective on the last four decades. Retrieved February 7, 2010, from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content storage 01/0000019b/80/16/88/b0.pdf.
28. Furtak, E. M. (2006). The problem with answers: An exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching. Science Education, 90, 453-467.
29. Gallager, J. (2006). Teaching science for understanding. New York: Allyn and Bacon.
30. Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B, & Soloway, E., et al. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based science curricula in the context of urban reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(8), 922-939.
31. Gess-Newsome, J., Southerland, S. A., 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.
32. Granger, D. E., & Herrnkind, W. F. (1999, October 1). Field biology research experiences for teachers: An effective model for inquiry-based science teaching. Proposal to the National Science Foundation. Funded 1999-2005.
33. Hall, D. A., & McCurdy, D. W. (1990). A comparison of a biological sciences curriculum study (BSCS) laboratory and a traditional laboratory on student achievement at two private liberal arts colleges. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 625-636.
34. Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., & Klein, S. P. (2002). Making sense of test-based accountability in education. Santa Monica, CA. Retrieved May, 29, 2004, from http://www.netLibrary.com/urlapi.asp?action=summary&v=1& bookid=81653.
35. Haney, J. J., Lumpe, A. T., Czerniak, C. M., & Egan, V. (2002). From beliefs to actions: The beliefs and actions of teachers implementing change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(3), 171-187.
36. Harwood, W. S., Hansen, J., & Lotter, C. (2006). Measuring teacher beliefs about inquiry: The development of a blended qualitative/quantitative instrument. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 69-79.
37. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Krischner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.
38. Hurn, C. (1992). The limits and possibilities of schooling: An introduction to the sociology of education. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
39. Jones, B. D., & Johnston, A. F. (2002, April). The effects of high-stakes testing on instructional practices. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
40. Jones, M. G., Jones, B. D., & Hargrove, T. Y. (2003). The unintended consequences of high-stakes testing. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield.
41. Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. A. (2001) Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 631-645.
42. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (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, 75-86.
43. Klahr, D. (2000). Exploring science: The cognition and development of discovery processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
44. Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15, 661-667.
45. Koballa, T. (2008, January). Inquiry in our midst. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Science Teacher Education, St. Louis, MO.
46. Lederman, J. S., Lederman, N. G., & Wickman, P.-O. (2008, April). An international, systematic investigation of the relative effects of inquiry and direct instruction: A replication study. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Baltimore, MD.
47. Lederman, N. (1998). The state of science education: Subject matter without context. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3(2). Retrieved February 7, 2010, from http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse/lederman.html.
48. Lederman, N., Lederman, J., Wickman, P. -O., & Lager-Nyqvist, L. (2007, April). Development of a valid and reliable protocol for the assessment of early childhood students' conceptions of nature of science and scientific inquiry. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
49. Lederman, N., Wade, P., & Bell, R. L. (1998). Assessing understanding of the nature of science: A historical perspective. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education (pp. 331-350). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
50. 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, 331-359.
51. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521.
52. Lederman, N. G., Abell, S., & Akerson, V. (2008). Students' knowledge and skills with inquiry. In E. Abrams, S. A. Southerland, & P. Silva (Eds.). Inquiry in the classrooms: Challenges and opportunities. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
53. Lederman, N. G., & O'Malley, M. (1990). Students' perceptions of tentativeness in science: Development, use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74(2), 225-239.
54. Lee, O. (1997). Scientific literacy for all: What is it, and how can we achieve it? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 219-222.
55. Lee, O., & Fradd, S. H. (1998). Science for all, including students from non-English-language backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 27(4), 12-21.
56. Lee, O., & Luykx, A. (2006). Science education and student diversity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
57. Leonard, W. H. (1983). An experimental study of a BSCS-style laboratory approach for university general biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(9), 807-813.
58. Leonard, W. H., Cavana, G. R., & Lowery, L. F. (1981). An experimental test of an extended discretion approach for high school biology laboratory investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18, 497-504.
59. Lotter, C., Harwood, W. S., & Bonner, J. J. (2007). The influence of core teaching conceptions on teachers' use of inquiry teaching practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(9), 1318-1347.
60. Luft, J. (2007). Minding the gap: Needed research in beginning/newly qualified science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 532-537.
61. Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., Geier, R., et al. (2004). Inquiry-based science in the middle grades: Assessment of learning in urban systemic reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 1063-1080.
62. McComas, W. F. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education (pp. 53-70). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
63. McComas, W. F., Almazroa, H., & Clough, M. P. (1998). The nature of science in science education: An introduction. Science & Education, 7, 511-532.
64. McComas, W. F., & Olson, J. K. (1998). The nature of science in international science education standards documents. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education (pp. 41-52). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
65. Millar, R. (1990). A means to an end: The role of process in science education. In B. Woolnought (Ed.), Practical science (pp.43-52). Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.
66. Millar, R., & Driver, R. (1987). Beyond processes. Studies in Science Education, 14, 33-62.
67. Moss, R. (1997). A discovery laboratory for studying gene regulation. The American Biology Teacher, 59, 522-526.
68. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
69. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
70. Passman, R. (2001). Experiences with student-centered teaching and learning in high-stakes assessment environments. Education, 122(1), 189-211.
71. Perrault, G. (2000). The classroom impact of high-stakes testing. Education, 120(4), 705-710.
72. Piburn, M., Sawada, D., Falconer, K., Turley, J., Benford, R., & Bloom, I. (2000). Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) ACEPT IN-003.
73. Pringle, R. M., & Carrier Martin, S. (2005). The potential impacts of upcoming high-stakes testing on the teaching of science in elementary classrooms. Research in Science Education, 35, 347-361.
74. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
75. Rothman, R. (1996). Taking aim at testing. American School Board Journal, 183(2), 27-30.
76. Rubba, P. (1977). The development, field testing and validation of an instrument to assess secondary school students' understandings of the nature of scientific knowledge. Dissertations Abstracts International, 38, 5378A.
77. Rubba, P., & Anderson, H. (1978). Development of an instrument to assess secondary school students' understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 62(4), 449-458.
78. Saka, Y., Southerland, S. A., & Brooks, J. (2009). Becoming a member of a school community while working toward science education reform: Teacher induction through a cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) perspective. Science Education, 93(6), 996-1025.
79. Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J. J. Schwab & P. F. Brandwein, The teaching of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
80. Settlage, J. (2007). Demythologizing science teacher education: Conquering the false ideal of open inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 461-467.
81. Settlage, J., & Meadows (2002). Standards-based reform and its unintended consequences: Implications for science education within America's urban schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(2), 114-127.
82. Settlage, J., & Southerland, S. A. (2007). Teaching science to all children: Using culture as a starting point. New York: Routledge.
83. Shaver, A., Cuevas, P., Lee, O., & Avalos, M. (2007). Teachers' perceptions of policy influences on science instruction with culturally and linguistically diverse elementary students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 725-746.
84. Shymansky, J. A., Hedges, L. V., & Woodworth, G. (1990). A reassessment of the effects of inquiry-based science curricula of the 60s on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 127-144.
85. Shymansky, J. A., Kyle, W. C., Jr., & Alport, J. M. (1983). The effects of new science curricula on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 387-404.
86. Soloman, P. (1998). The curriculum bridge: From standards to actual classroom practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
87. Southerland, S. A., Abrams, E., & Hutner, T. (2008). Standardized testing and Inquiry: How the accountability movement acts to prevent changes in science classrooms. In E. Abrams, S. Southerland, & P. Silva (Eds.), Inquiry in the classrooms: Realities and opportunities (pp. 143-168). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
88. Southerland, S. A., Gess-Newsome, J., & Johnston, A. (2003). Portraying science in the classroom: How scientists' beliefs are manifested in classroom practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 669-691.
89. Southerland, S. A., Johnston, A., & Sowell, S. (2006). Describing teachers' conceptual ecologies for the nature of science. Science Education, 90(5), 874-906
90. Southerland, S. A., Johnston, A., Sowell, S., & Settlage, J. (2005, April). Perhaps triangulation isn't enough: A call for crystallization as a methodological referent in NOS research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
91. Southerland, S. A., Rose, K., & Blanchard, M. (2009). A circuitous route to reform: Interactions of curriculum materials, research, professional development experiences, personal support, and a teacher's discontentment. In J. Gess-Newsome, J. Luft, & R. Bell (Eds.), Reform in the secondary science classroom (pp. 103-115). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
92. Southerland, S. A., Smith, L. K., Sowell, S., & Kittleson, J. (2007). Resisting unlearning: Understanding science education's response to the United State's national accountability movement. Review of Research in Education, 31, 45-77.
93. van Zee, E. H. (2000). Analysis of a student-generated inquiry discussion. International Journal of Science Education, 22(2), 115-142.
94. Von Seeker, C. (2002). Effects of inquiry-based teacher practices on science excellence and equity. Journal of Educational Research, 95(3), 151-160.
95. Von Seeker, C., & Lissitz, R. (1999). Estimating the impact of instructional practices on student achievement in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1110-1126.
96. White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3-118.
97. Whitford, B. L., & Jones, K. (2000). Kentucky lesson: How high stakes school accountability undermines a performance-based curriculum vision. In B. L. Whitford & K. Jones (Eds.), Accountability, assessment, and teacher commitment: Lessons from Kentucky's reform efforts (pp. 9-24). Albany: State University of New York Press.
98. Wideen, M. F., O'Shea, I. T., Pye, I., & Ivany, G. (1997). High-stakes testing and the teaching of science. Canadian Journal of Education, 22(4), 428-444.
99. Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessment to inform and improve student performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
100. Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of "inquiry": How preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific model. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 481-512.
101. Woodbury, S., & Gess-Newsome, J. (2002). Overcoming the paradox of change without difference: A model of change in the arena of fundamental school reform. Educational Policy, 16(5), 763-782.
102. Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track students' argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 807-838.
103. Yore, L, Henriques, L., Crawford, B., Smith, L. K., Zwiep, S., & Tillotson, J. (2008). Selecting and using inquiry approaches to teach science: The influence of context in elementary, middle & secondary schools. In E. Abrams, S. A. Southerland, & P. Silva (Eds.), Inquiry in the classrooms: Challenges and opportunities. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.