Developing Materials to Promote
Inquiry: Lessons Learned
DEBORAH J. TRUMBULL
Department of Education, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
RICK BONNEY
Educational Programs, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA
NANCY GRUDENS-SCHUCK
Department of Agricultural Education and Studies, Iowa State University,
Ames, IA 50011, USA
Received 15 February 2004; revised 9 February 2005; accepted 23 February 2005
DOI 10.1002/sce.20081
Published online 30 June 2005 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).
ABSTRACT: This paper focuses on an early stage of developing curricular materials to support students’ learning of scientific inquiry. The materials being developed and tested, called
Classroom FeederWatch (CFW), aimed to support science inquiry and were developed by a
collaborative team of private curriculum developers and scientists (ornithologists). Inquiry
dimensions were influenced at the outset by the newly released National Science Education
Standards (National Research Council, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1996)
and by prior successful experiences of ornithologists with inquiry experiences for adults. Despite hopes that CFW materials would assist middle school students to learn inquiry, evaluation findings showed little increase in students’ understanding of inquiry or the ability to plan
and conduct inquiry. We learned that improvements to inquiry dimensions of the curriculum
required aligning activities more closely with practices that reflected the work of scientists
in the discipline, integrating learning of content knowledge with learning about inquiry,
and adjusting evaluation protocols to more accurately assess inquiry as represented in the
Standards. Discussion highlights the influence of the Standards on development of inquiry
dimensions of the materials, including the way in which initial application of the Standards to
the early version of CFW materials may have restricted the engagement of both students and
C 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 89:879 – 900, 2005
teachers in conducting science inquiry. INTRODUCTION
Curricular reform in K-12 science continues to emphasize the development of materials
that foster inquiry. The limitations of learning science by rote, in the absence of inquiry
Correspondence to: Deborah J. Trumbull; e-mail: [email protected]
Contract grant sponsor: National Science Foundation.
Contract grant number: ESI-9618945 and ESI-9550541.
Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the National Science Foundation.
C
2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
880
TRUMBULL ET AL.
experiences, are well known. When science is presented as a stable body of expert knowledge, learners are discouraged from developing their own explorations and explanations of
observed phenomena (Schwab, 1962). Lack of experiences with scientific inquiry restricts
the success with which students evaluate scientific knowledge claims. On the other hand,
providing students with authentic opportunities to conduct science inquiry is expected to
enhance their abilities to successfully evaluate complex scientific ideas. Learning outcomes
associated with inquiry dimensions of science include, among other activities, generating
a hypothesis, developing a plan for gathering data, and constructing arguments based on
evidence (for example, Germann, Haskins, & Auls, 1996b; Herron, 1971; Schwab, 1962;
Tamir & Lunetta, 1978).
This manuscript examines development of inquiry dimensions of curriculum materials
Classroom FeederWatch (CFW). CFW was created and field-tested in a middle school setting by the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology (hereafter, the Lab) in collaboration with
experts in curriculum development. Prior to CFW, Lab staff documented that hundreds of
classroom teachers had enrolled in other Lab projects that featured the collection of scientific data about birds. The projects, however, had been designed for adult, nonformal, and
environmental education contexts, termed citizen science. Citizen science projects facilitate the participation of laypeople in professional scientific studies. Staff reasoned that even
more classroom teachers would offer bird study experiences to students if materials were
tailored for use in schoolyards. The CFW project gained momentum when Lab staff learned
that inquiry dimensions of Lab projects paralleled educational reforms that recommended
greater infusion of inquiry into science-teaching curricula. The materials discussed herein
were developed in 1996 – 1997 and field-tested in 1997 – 1998. Subsequent revisions of CFW
have taken into account multiple waves of evaluation data and function differently from the
versions described in this article. Our discussion is restricted to development and evaluation
of the first published version of CFW that was used broadscale in classrooms---what we
term the early version of CFW. Nonetheless, it was a crucial point in development of the
materials. The initial phases of curriculum development stimulated perhaps the greatest
learning about challenges associated with the creation of materials for teaching inquiry.
The article focuses on lessons learned from the early phase of development. In developing
this article, we re-examined closely all the materials developed, the evaluation data, and
notes from meetings that focused on curriculum development and evaluation.
TEACHING INQUIRY
Several waves of national curriculum reform in the United States over the last 40 years
emphasize that learning about inquiry is essential to learning in science. DeBoer (1991)
observed that different reforms generated different conceptions of the role of inquiry in
science teaching, as well as different conceptions of appropriate teaching strategies for
meeting inquiry goals. One venue generally considered to offer opportunities for students
to learn about inquiry is laboratory or practical work. One might therefore expect reform
efforts to have generated a range of laboratory-based activities that successfully involved
students in inquiry. On the whole, this has not occurred. Laboratory exercises typically
used in schools continue to emphasize confirmatory exercises that require students to follow explicit procedures to arrive at expected conclusions (Hickey et al., 2003; Hodson,
1996; Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004; White, 1996). Students thus are rewarded for following
directions and for obtaining predetermined correct answers. Consequently, students fail to
learn habits necessary for conducting scientific inquiry, such as observing carefully, using
theory and observations to formulate hypotheses, designing ways to investigate hypotheses
systematically, analyzing and interpreting data, or other aspects of investigations (Germann
SUPPORTING INQUIRY
881
et al., 1996b; Herron, 1971; Tamir & Lunetta, 1978; Schwab, 1962). Schwab’s writings remain some of the richest in delineating reasons why learning inquiry should be an important
goal of science teaching. These reasons still hold.
If [science] is taught as a nearly unmitigated rhetoric of conclusions in which the current
and temporary constructions of scientific knowledge are conveyed as empirical, literal, and
irrevocable truths . . . . A rhetoric of conclusions, then, is a structure of discourse which
persuades men (sic) to accept the tentative as certain, the doubtful as undoubted, by making
no mention of reasons or evidence for what it asserts, as if to say, “This, everyone of
importance knows to be true.” (p. 24, emphasis in the original)
Contemporary science textbooks and laboratory manuals continue to convey a view
of science knowledge as certain and invariant. Such representations of science limit the
success with which learners understand science, including making sense of contradiction
and disagreement among science experts. Further, when science is presented as a stable
body of expert knowledge, learners are discouraged from developing their own explorations
and explanations of observed phenomena. Students subsequently are limited in ability
and confidence with regard to inquiry. In the main, students who lack experience with
inquiry cannot generate a hypothesis, develop a plan to gather pertinent evidence, construct
arguments based on evidence, or evaluate knowledge claims of others (see also Hickey
et al., 2003). Reforms which emphasize inquiry are intended to remedy the deficits.
CLASSROOM FEEDERWATCH
When planning for CFW materials began in 1995, prior citizen science projects of the
Lab served as a model. Individuals gathered data about birds and submitted data using
protocols established by Lab scientists. Consider one of the Lab’s longstanding products,
Project FeederWatch (PFW), which began in 1987 and continues today. Since its inception,
more than 16,000 individuals across North America have counted and recorded the kinds
and numbers of birds observed at backyard feeders through PFW. Participants send data to
the Lab for use by ornithologists who, in turn, use the data to establish distribution patterns
and population densities of winter birds. Findings are reported in the Lab’s newsletter
Birdscope, on a dedicated Web site, and in the scientific literature (i.e., Hartup et al., 2001;
Hochachka, et al., 1999; Hochachka & Dhondt, 2000; LePage & Fancis, 2002; Wells et al.,
1998). Analysis of letters received from participants in PFW also revealed that individuals
(mainly adults) engaged in aspects of scientific thinking through PFW activities (Trumbull
et al., 2000).
Why did Lab scientists pursue expansion of citizen science projects into classrooms?
Evaluations of PFW also documented that classroom teachers used the project to teach
youth about birds, biology, mathematics, and statistics (Cornell Office of Communication
Strategies, 1995). Teachers also had enrolled in large numbers in a different citizen science
project offered by the Lab, termed the Seed Preference Test. The second project enabled
participants to implement a standard protocol to determine which of three kinds of seeds
were preferred by feeder birds in their area. Lab staff reasoned that if hundreds of teachers
were enrolling in projects, presumably involving students in those projects, even more
teachers would be interested in engaging youth in bird study projects if provided materials
developed explicitly for schools.
Furthermore, bird study seemed attractive to youth. Teachers participating in the Lab’s
citizen science projects reported that students became fascinated with birds and were eager
to learn about them and to observe them. Further, bird study appeared to be feasible for
schools located in a wide range of natural and built environments. Birds are among the
882
TRUMBULL ET AL.
few wild vertebrates that one may easily observe, even in school settings. Bird study also
was anticipated to provide rich opportunities for scientific study. Bird study can introduce
students to complex ecological and behavioral interactions in the world around them. For
example, by learning to identify common feeder birds and noting where specific birds are
seen or not seen, what they eat or do not eat, and when and where they eat, youngsters
are provided multisensory opportunities for elaborating scientific concepts such as habitat,
niche, and adaptation. Through supervised bird study, youngsters may learn to observe
natural phenomenon systematically and knowledgeably. Curiosity about birds, combined
with observations, was anticipated to stimulate students to ask authentic questions. In turn,
students could develop systematic methods to answer their questions.
Bird study appeared to provide an additional advantage---a protection of sorts against
science investigations as a matter of following steps to a right answer. As those who study
animal behavior know, accurately predicting the behavior of individual animals in specific
situations is nearly impossible. Therefore, writing confirmatory laboratory exercises for
bird investigations was easy to prevent. Moreover, project staff hoped that by helping
students to conduct their own research studies, students would learn firsthand that scientific
investigation is an active venture. Lab scientists hoped to portray science as untidy, involving
trial and error, repetition, and revision in contrast to the prevailing notion of science as a
static body of knowledge and inquiry as compliance with pre-established, routine activities.
Project developers also hoped that the process of studying living birds would enable students
to develop dispositions crucial for conducting successful scientific studies, such as patience,
perseverance, open mindedness, and the willingness to engage in problem solving. Such
activities were anticipated to approximate, at an elementary level, the behaviors and thinking
processes of scientists who conduct professional scientific studies.
These three elements---student interest, opportunities to learn key biological concepts,
and opportunities for developing habits of scientific inquiry---provided the warrant for Lab
staff to seek National Science Foundation funding to develop CFW. Funding was awarded.
Inquiry Standards and Classroom FeederWatch
The National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996; henceforth referred to as the
Standards) emphasize the importance of science inquiry, as had prior science reform documents (e.g., AAAS, 1989, 1993). The Standards document was in draft form when the
proposal for CFW was in process and was published just prior to work described in this
paper. CFW curriculum developers relied heavily on the published Standards in their work.
It became important in the evaluation phase of the CFW curriculum that a single section of
the Standards anchored the concept of inquiry for the materials, a point to which discussion
will return later in article. Specifically, development of the materials relied heavily on the
discussion of inquiry in the section titled “Content Standards 5 – 8.”
As a result of activities in grades 5 – 8, all students should develop
•
•
abilities necessary to do scientific inquiry, and
understanding about science inquiry.
(Content Standard A: NRC, 1996, p. 143)
These statements are followed by two pages of text that argue that students should engage
both in partial and full inquiry. The section offers suggestions for moving middle school
youngsters from current habits of thought toward the habits of thought congruent with
inquiry goals of the Standards. The text also emphasizes that students need to be actively
SUPPORTING INQUIRY
883
involved in doing inquiry: “This standard cannot be met by having the students memorize
the abilities and understandings. It can be met only when students frequently engage in
active inquiries” (NRC, 1996, p. 143). However, the text fails to distinguish full and partial
inquiry nor does it explain specific habits of thought that comprise inquiry.
Following the text is a list, in red type, of eight abilities needed to attain the standard.
Each ability is explained in a brief paragraph. The discussion of abilities highlights facets
of “doing” science, for example: “Identify questions that can be answered through scientific investigations,” and “develop descriptions, explanations, predictions, and models using
evidence” (NRC, 1996, p. 145). The list of abilities is followed by a list of seven understandings necessary to meet the standard; the understandings are presented in a bulleted
list only, with no red type or explanatory paragraph. Some examples of understandings:
“different kinds of questions suggest different kinds of scientific investigations,” “current
scientific knowledge and understanding guide scientific investigations,” “science advances
through legitimate skepticism” (NRC, 1996, p. 148).
We must underscore the newness of the Standards at the time. When CFW was fieldtested, little research had explicitly examined the Standards or its application to the development of curriculum materials. In 2000, for example, Bybee sketched a history of science
education reforms that emphasized inquiry. He highlighted confusion underlying discussions of the role of inquiry in science teaching---confusions to which the CFW curriculum
team likely was vulnerable during the development of the CFW prototype. To illustrate the
confusion generally, Bybee presented a fiendish self-test and also introduced a taxonomy of
inquiry. He began with selections from a 1910 speech by Dewey that distinguished between
science as subject matter and science as method. The text emphasized that students should
learn both. Bybee expanded upon Dewey by proposing three elements of inquiry teaching:
(a) use of inquiry to assist learners to grasp content, (b) use of activities to enable learners
to develop abilities for conducting inquiry, and (c) use of activities that enable learners
to understand how practicing scientists conducted actual science inquiries. Bybee’s tenets
have proved salient in analyzing the influence of the Standards on the early version of CFW
materials.
Design and Implementation
Lab staff had no experience in developing curriculum for schools, so teamed with a
curriculum development organization. The two organizations developed and published this
early CFW as a supplementary middle science school curriculum. (The developers designed
CFW to support other content areas, such as language and visual arts, but discussion of
these uses is beyond the scope of this paper.) The curriculum developers were located at
an appreciable distance from the Lab staff. There were no weekly or monthly meetings in
which all collaborators were present.
Similar to the Lab’s array of citizen science projects, Lab staff envisioned data collection
and data exchange as key elements of CFW. Students were expected to collect data about
birds seen at feeders. They would submit data via the Internet to Lab scientists. Consequently,
student-generated data was expected to contribute to real research projects. Developers also
intended that CFW classrooms share data across locations. Developers hoped that activities
related to collecting and sharing data would inspire students to generate additional questions
that could be answered on their own or by accessing aggregated data available online. In
addition to high-priority activities related to data collection and exchange, the materials
included activities that focused on bird biology, bird identification, and construction of
schoolyard feeder stations. The project also encouraged students and teachers to publish
exemplary work in a CFW (hardcopy) magazine called Classroom Birdscope.
884
TRUMBULL ET AL.
Field-Testing Materials
At the start of the 1997/1998 school year, nearly 200 teachers from 32 states volunteered
to field-test the early CFW curriculum materials. All teachers received a 158-page teacher’s
guide with eight sections and 15 explorations (e.g., units or modules) (See Appendix for
more detail). The section(s) of the Standards considered relevant to each exploration were
listed in the introduction to the unit, and in each exploration. Nine explorations were identified as pertinent to Content Standard A---Inquiry. The curriculum materials included preactivities for teachers to complete before involving students in CFW.
EVALUATION
Evaluation data were collected during the field test by a team of formative evaluators
located in Ithaca. The evaluation focused on teachers’ reactions to the curriculum materials,
including descriptions of usage. The evaluation also sought to determine learning outcomes
of students, including the extent to which students demonstrated gains in scientific inquiry.
The evaluation data were expected to inform ongoing development of the materials. Only
evaluations related to inquiry are reported here. The evaluation budget did not allow visits to classrooms for observations, so the evaluators relied on questionnaires, telephone
interviews, and the analysis of data generated through the use of CFW.
Teacher Data
We gathered data from teachers and students. The data relevant to inquiry dimensions
were produced by eliciting teachers’ year-end responses on a questionnaire. The questionnaire requested information on the number and title of explorations used in the classroom.
Teachers’ reactions to the materials were gauged through content analysis of teachers’ postings to a dedicated CFW listserv. All teachers involved in the field test were enrolled on a
listserv. Sixty six teachers participating in the field test posted to the listserv at least once in
the field test year. Their questions, comments, and concerns communicated the varied ways
in which teachers used the materials with students and the aspects of birds that intrigued or
puzzled their students.
The curriculum developers stated that nine CFW explorations addressed some aspect of
scientific inquiry. Four of the nine addressed the understanding that “Different kinds of
questions suggest different kinds of scientific investigations” (NRC, p. 148). The four explorations were used by over half of the field test teachers. Five explorations were identified
as directly addressing at least some of the abilities needed for doing investigations. Table 1
presents teachers’ uses of these five explorations.
The percentages in Table 2 show that some, but not all, teachers exposed students to
explorations that were anticipated to foster science inquiry abilities and/or understandings.
TABLE 1
Teachers’ Uses of Explorations
Exploration
#7. Count the birds
#8. Analyze and display your data
#12. How do birds get food?
#4. Writing about your research
#15. What can we learn from our own questions?
Teacher Use (%)
88
51
44
37
17
SUPPORTING INQUIRY
885
TABLE 2
Student Responses on Selected Pre- and Post-test Questions
Grade Level and test
N=
5th Pre-
5th Post-
6th Pre-
6th Post-
7th Pre-
157
150
44
42
327
(a) Why is this kind of bird not seen at a feeder?
Season/weather
9%
7%
7%
14%
8%
Wrong food
43%
44%
27%
48%
33%
Wrong habitat
31%
30%
50%
36%
39%
Competition
2%
0%
2%
2%
5%
Not coded, blank
22%
28%
25%
15%
25%
(b) How would you find out if this is a reason?
Compare sites
16%
13%
25%
21%
26%
Set up experiment
15%
13%
7%
17%
18%
Ask an expert
26%
27%
18%
33%
17%
Not coded, blank
43%
46%
50%
33%
41%
(c) Why is your count information useful to the ornithologists?
Identification
9%
8%
2%
2%
6%
Natural history
14%
37%
30%
45%
28%
Restated question
45%
15%
48%
29%
38%
Not coded, blank
32%
43%
25%
24%
29%
7th Post259
16%
53%
37%
3%
13%
22%
21%
29%
29%
7%
44%
15%
39%
Nonetheless, analysis of listserv postings revealed that conducting studies was not central to
teachers’ uses of CFW. In fact, no posts to the listserv referred to student investigations. For
example, no posts described student inquiry projects or asked for help in developing student
questions, conducting or analyzing bird data. Teachers primarily expressed concerns about
erecting and maintaining feeders, attracting birds, reporting birds, and locating additional
materials on bird biology and identification.
Student Data
We measured outcomes of student learning through 19 item test administered pre- and
post-design, completed at the start and the end of the school year. We also analyzed student
work submitted for publication in Classroom Birdscope for additional evidence of learning
about inquiry.
Questions on the student pre-and post-test measured the change in
knowledge of bird biology and changes in attitudes about conducting science, as well as
aspects of inquiry. (Note: Data related to noninquiry learning outcomes are not provided or
discussed in this article.) Several questions, however, were designed specifically to assess
gains in understanding and accurately applying concepts related to inquiry. One of the
items was a constructed response item. Students’ written responses were coded using a
rubric developed by the evaluators. The students were first asked to explain how they would
identify a bird that they did not know, which we called “Grover.” This was followed by two
other questions.
Pre-/post-Test Data.
You never see another bird like Grover at the bird feeder at your school, but you see lots of
birds like Grover at another feeder away from school.
A. What is one possible reason that birds like Grover are at the other feeders and not at
school?
B. How would you find out if this is a reason?
886
TRUMBULL ET AL.
Part A was designed to address the following necessary abilities within Content
Standard A:
Students should base their explanation on what they observed, and as they develop cognitive
skills, they should be able to differentiate explanation from description . . . . Students should
identify and control variables. (NRC, 1996, p. 145)
We designed part B to address the following ability: Students should design investigations.
(NRC, 1996, p. 145)
We also designed part B to address the following understandings about scientific inquiry:
Current science knowledge and understanding guide science investigation. Different kinds
of questions suggest different kinds of scientific investigations. Some investigations involve observing and describing . . . some involve experiments; some involve seeking more
information. (NRC, 1996, p. 148)
In developing the coding scheme for part A, we reviewed all student responses, then
categorized reasonable variables that accounted for the observations. We divided these into
the categories of season, available food, habitat, or competition. Some responses made no
sense or were illegible and were not coded. A coder read eligible student responses to
determine which, if any, categories were represented. Some students identified more than
one valid variable. In coding part B, we determined legitimate experimental or systematic
observation procedures that could be used to address the questions students posed. We then
scored students’ responses according to the two possible design strategies.
Examining pretest responses on part A, it was apparent that many students already could
identify variables that accounted for the observation. These already-capable students demonstrated an ability to form a hypothesis, suggesting they could distinguish between observation and explanation. The pretest responses also showed that some students already used
biological knowledge, revealed by explanations that discussed, for example, how and why
different species have specific food and habitat requirements. There was some gain overall
in percent of correct responses when posttest results were analyzed. Also, the percentage of
answers we could not interpret or code decreased on the posttest for sixth- and seventh-grade
students, indicating learning of some inquiry abilities.
However, student responses to part B showed very little change in the desired direction.
For example, students did not show improvement in their ability to outline systematic procedures to test a hypothesis. Fifth-grade response percentages remained virtually unchanged.
In the other two grades, there were only small increases in the percentages of students
who sketched valid experimental procedures to investigate the phenomenon. In addition,
the percentage of students who suggested comparing sites systematically (without changing variables) to test their hypothesis decreased. Moreover, the proportion of no response,
responses we could not interpret, or answers we could not code remained relatively large
on the posttests. Also, the percentage of students who responded that they would “ask an
expert” to gauge whether their hypothesis was reasonable increased in both sixth and seventh grades. These data did not appear to support a claim that inquiry skills were learned
through exposure to these early CFW materials.
In a different section, the test asked students why the information that they collected would
be useful to scientists at the Lab. Although there were small increases in the percentages of
students who expressed that their observations would help ornithologists to better understand
birds (either their identification or natural history), over half of the students in all grades
restated the question, left it blank, or wrote something that failed to answer the question.
SUPPORTING INQUIRY
887
Student work submitted for publication in Classroom Birdscope also provided data about
student learning. Students from 32 field test classrooms submitted work for review. After
examining the submissions, project staff decided to accept at least one entry from each
classroom and to publish all articles that focused on inquiry. To qualify as inquiry related,
an article had to present (or imply) a hypothesis, provide for systematic comparison of two
data sets, or manipulate raw data in some systematic way. For example, we considered a
computer-generated graph showing numbers and percentages of species observed to be a
demonstration of inquiry ability, e.g., the submission demonstrated that the student was able
to organize data and used technology in the process. Conversely, we rejected as inquiryrelated submissions which provided only a list of bird species observed by students. The Lab
published 71 items only in the 16-page Classroom Birdscope. Only 13 articles demonstrated
some aspect of inquiry. Of the 13, five were from one teacher’s classroom. Clearly this was
an exceptional teacher, but the evaluation design and budget did not allow us to explore this
teacher’s practice in depth.
DISCUSSION
The evaluation data overall failed to support the claim that students learned inquiry
abilities or developed understandings of inquiry as a result of participating in activities
associated with CFW’s early materials. Evaluation data also indicated that few teachers even
attempted to use the early version to help students to design science investigations. Moving
from analysis of evaluation data to recommendations, however, is not straightforward. Later
revisions of CFW were based on consideration of three elements related to the findings,
as well as ideas of members of the curriculum team regarding changes in materials and
delivery of CFW. The three elements account for the data, yet are not dominated by them
in a simplistic way.
Elements
1. Pedagogical theories related to learning inquiry,
2. Science and technology studies, and
3. Review of evaluation protocols.
The following sections discuss each of the elements, followed by examples.
Pedagogical Theories
CFW curriculum developers were confident in their endorsement of “doing science” as
a way to provide high-quality opportunities for students to learn inquiry. Our discussion
brings to the foreground theoretical frameworks that may explain how design of CFW failed
in this regard, although many of the elements for success were present, including linkages
to the Standards document.
In the interpretation phase of the evaluation, Lab staff and evaluators needed to acknowledge two rather than a single group of learners: teachers as well
as students. Windschitl (2001) discusses several studies that show that teachers experience
difficulty involving their students in extended inquiry experiences. Windschitl attributes
the difficulty to the possibility that teachers are “confused about what constitutes inquiry”
(see also Blumenfeld et al., 1994; Hodson, 1988; Welch et al., 1981). Many teachers may
possess simplistic or incomplete ideas about science inquiry or lack knowledge and experience in promoting students’ inquiry activities. Polman (2000) and Posnanski (2002) provide detail about the ways in which teachers may successfully prepare students to conduct
Teachers and Inquiry.
888
TRUMBULL ET AL.
investigations, including thorough, extensive, and multifaceted professional development.
Such studies, however, are rare. More supports for middle school teachers for learning, then
leading, science investigations likely were needed as part of CFW.
CFW materials also provided limited supports for students to
learn to conduct independent inquiries. In sum, CFW provided too little in terms of explicating successive approximations or scaffolding of concepts and behaviors to enable
students to move from science-as-information to science-as-inquiry. To illustrate the complex ties of inquiry, Germann et al., (1996b) provide a taxonomy of levels of inquiry involved
in laboratory projects. The taxonomy is based on Schwab (1962), Herron (1971), and Tamir
and Lunetta (1978). In the taxonomy, the “problem” phase of scientific inquiry consists
of developing the question or hypothesis and identifying the variables and controls. The
“methods” phase includes developing procedures and formats for collecting and organizing
data. In the last phase, “solutions,” students perform a procedure, transform data to make
claims, and use claims to develop further questions or hypotheses. Germann et al. emphasize “an inquiry at any level, in which teachers help students establish adequate background
knowledge, experiences, and techniques is more likely to result in successful completion
of the inquiry” (Germann et al., 1996b, p. 481). The early version of CFW, however, did
not communicate to teachers that students would require supports at the level of specificity
recommended by Germann et al. The taxonomy also underscores the interrelatedness of
seemingly distinct aspects of inquiry. It is possible that application of the Germann et al.
framework (or a similar framework) during initial design of CFW would have led to increased emphasis on inquiry in many, if not all, of the student activities, perhaps leading to
greater inquiry outcomes for students.
Students and Inquiry.
The team also reviewed the way in which the Standards
operated in CFW as a framework for teaching inquiry. Lessons learned in this regard highlighted an important decision that likely influenced the course of study away from inquiry
rather than toward inquiry: Design of CFW relied upon a single section of the Standards
related to inquiry. Crucial dimensions of inquiry appear, however, throughout the Standards
at multiple levels and in relationship to each other. The team now appreciates---in a way
that was not possible at the outset---the interrelated character of inquiry dimensions of the
Standards. For example, as mentioned earlier, the use of the terms “partial” versus “full”
inquiry in the Standards in the section used by curriculum developers failed to provide detail
for either term, which led to little emphasis on creating opportunities for partial inquiries.
Using the Standards to design the curriculum materials was, in sum, not straightforward.
The standard for inquiry, for example, is presented in pyramid style. The big ideas are
presented first. These are then elaborated with more and more detail about the abilities
and understandings needed for students to accomplish the standard. Designing materials
according to the Standards thus presented a challenge because the document as whole is
multifaceted. Going deeply into the pyramid, on one hand, risked the inclusion of too much
detail to design a useable lesson. In this case, students might have learned an aspect of
inquiry without understanding how it fit into a scientific investigation in general. On the
other hand, curriculum materials featuring the big ideas at the top of the pyramid likely
would have resulted in activities that relayed too little detail, resulting in activities or lessons
that failed to provide sufficient instruction. This alternative level of generality could result in
inaction. This second scenario is what we believe occurred in the design of the early version
of CFW, i.e., the curriculum developers generally addressed only the highest levels of the
standard. They then failed to clarify how specific activities in the explorations contributed
to the standard. Lack of specificity likely obscured the inquiry goal of the lesson, making it
Influence of the Standards.
SUPPORTING INQUIRY
889
more difficult for a teacher to diagnose and address points at which students were confused
or lost. Challenges related to degree of specificity and its relation to scaffolding for students
are not unique to experiences of the CFW team. The development and evaluation team that
shepherded successive versions of the GenScope software, which integrated technology into
genetics teaching, struggled in a similar way (Hickey et al., 2003). The GenScope team was
challenged, in a way that mirrored development of CFW, with the need to assist students to
move beyond algorithmic (i.e., formulaic or unthinking) applications of science concepts,
typified in learning genetics by use of the Punnett square (p. 499).
Bybee (2000) also calls attention to the importance of understanding how inquiries are
done. Specifically, many students did not appear to understand that the act of submitting data
would contribute to actual scientific findings. The lack of appreciation of students’ potential
contributions to science through the submission of data was especially disappointing to
Lab scientists because the act of providing data was anticipated to boost students’ morale
and motivation. Lab scientists had good reason to ascribe positive feelings to the act of
submitting data. The amateur ornithologists who collected data as part of citizen science
projects celebrated their partnership with professional scientists (Trumbull et al., 2000).
Lab staff had assumed that the act of submitting data would, similar to experiences of
PFW participants, lead students to conclude that their classroom activities helped to create
their own authentic science. Evaluation data suggest, however, that many students did not
understand the connection. The finding is unsurprising given our current understanding
of the ways in which inquiry was understood by adult citizen scientist participants versus
school-aged youth. Moreover, early curriculum materials contained no examples of prior
studies using CFW data and, in this first year of the project, there were also no issues of
Classroom Birdscope to model successful student-led inquiry or its role in contributing to
the Lab’s long term, national bird studies.
Science and Technology Studies
Science and technology studies have taught the rest of us that scientists are a varied lot. Principally, scientific processes used by scientists differ by discipline, social and
cultural norms, and the era in which science was conducted (Finley & Pocovi, 2000).
Ornithologists---such as those working at the Lab---were no exception. Their scientific studies about birds possessed a rhythm and character that reflected both historical and contemporary concerns of ornithologists and their institutions. Moreover, bird studies reflected
the nature of the phenomenon: birds and their habitats. It is against this backdrop of scientists as members of particular communities of inquiry that CFW must be examined. In
hindsight, we have concluded that the early versions of CFW featured a version of science
and scientists that was too abstract and free of context. For example, the CFW exploration
that directly addressed the scientific process presented the following sequence: formulate a
question, predict an answer, develop procedures to gather information, collect and analyze
data, communicate results, and raise new questions. As an abstraction, the description was
adequate. For the purposes of teaching inquiry, the level of abstraction provided a simplistic,
even distorted model of practical elements of scientific inquiry (Bencze & Hodson, 1999;
Finley & Pocovi, 2000). The description was not adequate as a teaching strategy for learning
how to conduct studies about birds.
In particular, exploration narratives failed to explain how and why an ornithologist came
to ask questions, which question got addressed, how she decided to gather data to address
the question, or how he made sense of the data. There were, in short, no models that either
students or teachers could examine that linked content (birds) to inquiry (bird studies).
Evaluation findings led the team to conclude that more, rather than less, detail about scientific
inquiry in the hands of ornithologists was needed. The most serious deficit was lack of
890
TRUMBULL ET AL.
appreciation of the role of content knowledge about birds in conducting successful inquiry.
A second deficit was the lack of detail regarding communication, creativity, and deliberation
necessary to decision making by ornithologists.
As Finley and Pocovi (2000) point out, asking a good question
requires content understanding and more. “Without [prior knowledge] thought would be
impossible. The formulation of a hypothesis that actually will improve an understanding
of the phenomenon under study is a highly creative intellectual act” (pp. 55, 56). Upon
reflection, it is clear that Lab scientists insufficiently emphasized the role of the depth and
breadth of their own extensive knowledge about birds in designing bird studies and even
in observing birds. The failure of Lab scientists to specify knowledge used to design bird
investigations was not, however, surprising. Vellom and Anderson (1999) observe along
with others that clarifying how one’s domain knowledge shapes one’s work is difficult. Nor
did the curriculum development process appear to assist scientists to adequately unpack
the knowledge upon which high quality bird investigations depended. The way knowledge
shapes observation, for example, reinforces the need to be mindful of prior knowledge
required to formulate a good question. The role that underdeveloped content knowledge
among teachers (therefore, students) played in restricting inquiry is illustrated through
two persistent problems experienced during the field test: (a) the absence of birds and (b)
problems identifying or counting birds.
Content Knowledge.
Lack of Birds. It was the unexpected nature of this problem that called attention to
the gulf between teachers’ knowledge of birds and Lab scientists’ knowledge of birds,
underscoring the necessity of knowledge to successful inquiry. During the field test, it
became apparent that many classrooms failed to attract birds as quickly as they had expected.
Without birds, CFW materials were not very useful. For classrooms that never succeeded
in attracting birds, CFW resulted in disappointed students and frustrated teachers. The
failure to attract birds, however, was not anticipated by scientists. How hard could it be
to attract birds? The correct answer is: Not very hard for people who know a lot about
birds. The evaluation showed that CFW field test materials provided insufficient guidance
in this regard. The materials contained a section that directed teachers to dedicate a feeder
site. The title of the exploration was: “Design and make your own Feeders.” The materials
treated birdfeeder construction, placement, and maintenance as straightforward activities.
The directions could be summarized as “put up a feeder and add seed.” The unit implied
that once a feeder was established, birds would appear. The exploration failed to explicate
the many relevant factors to consider when setting up a bird feeder to attract birds. Correctly
locating a feeder was something that Lab staff knew how to do so well that they gave it little
thought. The lack of acknowledgement of the complexity of installing feeders led curriculum
developers, who were not bird experts, to do likewise. Subsequent revisions of CFW paid
more attention to feeder placement and other factors involved in attracting sufficient types
and numbers of birds. For example, feeder setup activities now instruct teachers and students
to observe potential sites for suitability and suggest using print resources to learn about local
birds’ niches and preferences before designing a feeder station. At the time, however, CFW
did not provide this level of support. Students were never involved in figuring out where to
place feeders.
At first glance, elaboration of the steps for erecting a functioning feeder station seems
to fall outside the definition of inquiry. However, a close reading of the Standards, with
attention to aspects that underscore the interdependent relationship of content knowledge to
successful inquiry, suggests otherwise. Getting the feeder placement right by hypothesizing
about good locations using an understanding of such things as birds and their habitats now
appears to us to be an early inquiry activity, not an activity outside of the domain of inquiry.
SUPPORTING INQUIRY
891
Inability to Identify or Count Birds. Students and teachers also struggled to successfully
identify and count birds. Like feeder placement, such skills are necessary to conducting
successful bird studies. Lack of support in early CFW materials for developing the skills
likely played a role in limiting interest in conducting bird studies. Those who first attempt to
watch and identify birds quickly learn that birds do not hold still long enough to match every
feature to the pictures in the bird guide. Experienced birdwatchers learn to focus on particular
features, called field marks, which distinguish birds more readily. Students who grasp and
apply this strategy not only identify birds more quickly, they also learn a sophisticated
form of observation particular to a discipline (i.e., ornithology). Careful observation thus
is structured by knowledge about birds and by knowing the kinds of questions to ask about
the birds one may see. Had early CFW materials provided more explanation of the role
of field marks in observing and counting birds, students would have been helped to focus
observations and to understand species differences. When successfully generalized to other
fields, students could grasp that features of the phenomenon and the discipline influence
scientific observation. This insight is crucial to understanding the sciences across disciplines.
The insight also is essential to understanding why scientists working in different fields may
arrive at contradictory conclusions yet may be considered to produce valid claims.
Discussions with field test teachers also indicated that students had difficulty complying
with the protocol for counting birds. The early CFW materials, in this case, provided plentiful
detail in the form of the standard Lab protocol for data collection. The need for a consistent
protocol was obvious to Lab staff but teachers complained that the protocol seemed arbitrary.
Close review of materials showed that the protocol was clear, but unexplained. Standardization across sites for collection of data is essential for some scientific studies, including the
sorts of studies the Lab conducted. Students, however, were not helped to understand the
reasons for the way they were expected to record their data. Insufficient explanation affected
motivation to employ the protocol, but also missed an opportunity for CFW to underscore
and explain the need for consistent sampling schemes in high quality bird studies.
Our emerging appreciation of the interdependency of content and inquiry led the evaluation team and Lab scientists to solve other puzzles that arose during the field test. For
example, even CFW teachers who communicated that they were comfortable with data
analysis techniques ended the year asking for help teaching inquiry. Their comments emphasized the role that content knowledge plays in data analysis and interpretation. As many
have argued (for example, Ryder & Leach, 2000; Stewart & Rudolph, 2001), interpretation
of data is not merely a process of applying analytic techniques or rules; rather, the process
requires the use of a model or theoretical perspective to frame how one looks at information. Ryder and Leach (2000) state that scientific explanations do not “emerge directly and
unproblematically from data” (p. 1069). Further, the assumption that students would use
data collected from their schoolyards together with data from other classrooms to develop
scientific claims was based on a naive empiricist view in which data are presumed to have
meaning in the absence of interpretation (Varelas, 1996). Varelas (1996) explains the fallacy
thus, “science is not constituted only by empirically based generalizations, and ignoring the
deductive direction at best presents only a partial image of science” (p. 260).
Review of Evaluation Protocols
The lack of desired learning outcomes for inquiry did not, by itself, indicate that our
evaluation protocols should be reviewed. To suggest revision based only on disappointing
results would be to admit a positive bias in the evaluation---something that professional
evaluators are trained to avoid (Weiss, 1998). Nonetheless, evaluations of pilot or novel
programs or services, especially those that are formative and are intended to influence
ongoing development, are expected to adapt to changes in programming (Weiss, 1998).
892
TRUMBULL ET AL.
In the case of CFW, which was still being developed, changes to the early version were
sufficiently significant to warrant revision of evaluation protocols. First, there was a need to
adjust evaluation procedures to follow changes in the program. A second insight was more
of a critique of the initial evaluation design and, in light of fuller understanding of the gap
between the potential and actual role of the Standards in shaping inquiry dimensions of the
curriculum, led the team to question the validity of some of the initial evaluation findings.
To explain: questions on the pre- and post-test were designed to address the sections of
the Standards that the explorations claimed to address. This was a reasonable approach,
approximating a goal-based evaluation (Weiss, 1998). When analyzing student responses,
however, we experienced difficulties. We learned, for example, that many questions could
be answered acceptably in more than one way. Upon close examination of the Standards,
we concluded that multiple answers were legitimate. Moreover, some of the unexpected but
legitimate responses appeared to reflect more than a single segment of the Standards. The
difficulty was most apparent in responses to the question that asked students to explain how
they would test a hypothesis (i.e., Why a particular species, “Grover,” was not present---see
earlier).
Based solely on the data, it was reasonable to claim that CFW
materials failed to support a particular inquiry section of the Standards because participating
students did not improve their abilities to devise methods of testing a hypothesis. However,
the findings, when taken as a whole, supported a different interpretation. In light of our
emerging understanding of the importance of integration of content knowledge and inquiry
as practice, we realized that it was also defensible to suggest that some of the seemingly
negative data supported a claim that students learned inquiry. We focused our attention
on responses that indicated that students believed they should consult with experts before
designing an investigation. Prior to field-testing, “ask an expert” functioned as an indicator
of students’ conception of science-as-a- body-of-information. We now see that it was also
plausible that “ask an expert” indicated students’ correct assumption either that more content
knowledge (about birds) was needed to create a plan for successfully testing a hypothesis
for use in a bird study or that scientists had already explored this question. Given the
second interpretation, the increase in the number of students who expressed that they would
“ask an expert” could be interpreted as a gain in the right direction, i.e., a move toward
inquiry-oriented thinking.
The two reasonable yet contradictory interpretations reveal the complexity associated
with the interrelated character of items in the Standards. Because each specific standard
was not written as a set of discrete objectives, for which assessment might be expected to
yield unequivocal results, evaluating student learning using the Standards was complex and
intriguing. All of the abilities and understandings informed each other, suggesting that more
holistic examinations of student work are required to evaluate whether the Standards’ desired
outcomes are being met (see also Hickey et al., 2003). Overall, the fact that teachers and
students lacked contextual knowledge meant that we could not determine with confidence
which aspect of the Standards was met. We do not claim that this is due to errors or gaps
in the Standards but instead represents our failure to appreciate the complexity of inquiry
dimensions the Standards.
Further, we have come to believe that any standard that could be isolated and operationalized for assessment risks trivializing the enterprise represented by the development
of the Standards. The complexity of the Standards for inquiry, alone, makes evaluation of
students’ performances complicated, because judgments about students’ performances require detailed knowledge of the whole of students’ educational experiences. Anderson and
Helms (2001) note, “the nature of the desired student work and the means of engaging students in it within ordinary classroom contexts, is not known in any practical detail” (p. 10).
Alternative Interpretation.
SUPPORTING INQUIRY
893
By providing extensive explication of factors to be considered in learning inquiry (in all
its conceptions), the Standards furnishes a framework for further research on outcomes of
student learning about science inquiry and on the teaching needed to support that learning.
CONCLUSIONS
The ability of students to understand science as the practice of inquiry is an essential yet
neglected aspect of teaching science and is a focus of ongoing reform. The experience of
working on a multiyear middle school curriculum development project that emphasized science inquiry led us to consider issues related to teaching and learning inquiry from multiple
theoretical perspectives. Careful consideration of issues was needed, in part, because evaluation findings based on pre- and post-tests and other data from a field test of early CFW materials demonstrated little or no improvement in student outcomes related to inquiry. However,
to fully interpret the data, it was necessary to address pedagogical theories related to learning
inquiry and issues related to conceptions of inquiry from science and technology studies.
It was also necessary to review evaluation protocols for assessment of inquiry outcomes.
Evaluation findings enabled the development team to act on three broad recommendations: (a) integrate into materials content knowledge about birds and about inquiry to enable
teachers and students to successfully plan and conduct bird studies, (b) provide disciplinespecific models for conducting inquiry (i.e., ornithologists’ decisions related to designing
bird studies), and (c) assess outcomes mindful of broad rather than narrow definitions of
inquiry to better reflect the Standards.
Reflections
In discussions over the years with Lab staff, curriculum developers, CFW teachers, and
members of the evaluation team, the conversation invariably turns to the topic of “What
could we have done differently?” with respect to engaging students and teachers in inquiry.
Hindsight reveals a dilemma: curriculum developers did not possess detailed knowledge of
inquiry as conducted by ornithologists, and ornithologists did not understand the crucial
role of prior knowledge in learning to plan and conduct bird studies. Indeed, it was not
surprising that much of scientists’ knowledge was tacit. Curriculum developers probed
scientists’ knowledge, but insufficiently. The curriculum development experts were not
local and did not attend regular meetings of the Lab project team. The lack of opportunities
for in depth conversation between the Lab scientists and curriculum developers may have
prevented sufficient exploration of the role of scientists’ knowledge in inquiry (see also
Weiss, 1998). Each group held assumptions about teaching and practicing inquiry that
remained unarticulated and unchallenged by the other. Questions crucial to design and
delivery of the program remained unanswered, such as, “Why should students learn this?”
and “What does someone have to understand in order to succeed at this activity?”
The project stimulated thoughtful approaches to applying the Standards to development of curriculum materials. As Collins noted (1998), the existence of the Standards as
a manifestation of policy has shaped research and development in science education. The
Standards have served as the impetus for many curriculum projects since its publication.
What seemed to be a straightforward application of the Standards to curriculum materials,
however, quickly vanished in the first year of the CFW experience. In the early days of
the CFW project, we found that using the Standards led us to think in ways we had not
anticipated. We benefited enormously from revisiting the Standards which, rereading in
light of our experiences, led to different insights. It is our hope that analysis and reflections
on development of the early version of CFW will assist others to persist in development of
opportunities for students to learn inquiry using the Standards or other robust frameworks
in ways that reflect their complexity.
Preactivities
About
Classroom
Feederwatch
Sections of the
CFW Curriculum
Teachers
Audience
Put up a feeder and
add seed
Register your school
Set up your
resource center
How will I fit the
project into my
teaching?
What is Classroom
Feederwatch?
What equipment do I
need?
How will I know what
my students are
learning?
What are the goals
of the project?
Titles of
Individual Activities
Teaching Std D (p. 43)
Teaching Std D (p. 44)
Teaching Std D (p. 43)
1. Students learn to identify birds and become
amateur ornithologists
2. Students collect data and contribute it to a research
database used by professional ornithologists in
their studies of bird populations
3. Students analyze and display data to answer their
own questions and use their findings to describe
how the natural world works
4. Students publish their conclusions and their
observations, writings, and artwork
Goals or Standards Addresseda
Appendix: Overview of the Early Classroom FeederWatch Materials
Instructions given for how to set
up a feeder, store seed, etc
Teacher register on line
Teachers collect needed
materials
Describes the organization of the
materials and the key activities
Lists materials used for watching
and identifying birds at feeders
Refers to the assessments
provided in some explorations
Explains links between
Standards and the curriculum
Overview of Learning Activities
894
TRUMBULL ET AL.
Explorations Part II:
What can we
learn about birds
from data?
Explorations Part I:
What can we
learn about our
feeder birds?
Students
The unifying concepts and processes standard
(p. 316)
Content Std A: “Different kinds of questions suggest
different kinds of scientific investigations. Some
investigations involve observing and describing
objects, organisms, or events” (p. 148).
Content Standard A: “With practice, students should
be competent at communicating experimental
methods, following instructions, describing
observations, summarizing the results of other
groups, and telling other students about
investigations and explanations” (p. 148). Content
Std G Nature of science (p. 170)
2.Identify birds at
our feeders
3. What do we see
on our bird walk?
4. Writing about and
publishing your
research
Content Std G Nature of Science (p. 170)
1. What makes
Classroom
FeederWatch real
science?
Continued
Students discuss a letter from
Lab scientists, use of e-mail
and web resources, review
definitions and their role in
collecting data
Students learn basic bird
identification skills
Students predict birds they might
see then take a bird walk and
identify birds actually seen and
compare to predictions
Teachers present National
Classroom Birdscope and
develop plans to produce a
Classroom Birdscope for their
class
SUPPORTING INQUIRY
895
Explorations Part III:
What can we learn
about bird biology
and behavior?
Sections of the
CFW Curriculum
(Continued )
Audience
8. Analyze and
display bird-count
data
6. Send your
count-area data to
the Lab
7. Count the birds at
our feeders
5. Design and make
your own feeders
Titles of
Individual Activities
Content Standard A: “Students should be able to
access, gather, store, retrieve, and organize data.
Students should become competent at
communicating experimental methods, following
instructions, describing observations, summarizing
the results of other groups, an tell other students
about investigations and explanations. Mathematics
can be used to ask questions; to gather, organize,
and present data; and to structure convincing
explanations” (pp. 145 and 148).
Content Standard A: “Technology used to gather
data enhances accuracy and allows scientists to
analyze and quantify results of investigations”
(p. 148)
Content Standard A: See above.
Content Stds E Science and Technology (p. 166) and
F Science In Personal and Social Perspectives
(pp. 165 and 166).
Content Std C, Life Science (pp. 157 and 158).
Goals or Standards addresseda
Students use Lab protocol to
collect information about
feeder habitats
Students use binoculars and the
Lab protocol to count birds
Students use knowledge of bird
biology to build feeders
Overview of Learning Activities
896
TRUMBULL ET AL.
Explorations Part IV:
What else can we
learn about birds?
14. How can birds
fly?
13. How do feathers
work?
12. How do birds get
food?
11. How do beaks
and feet help birds
eat?
9.Why are birds
important?
10. What is a bird?
Unifying Concepts and Processes Standard (pp. 116
and 117)
Unifying Concepts and Processes Standard (p. 116)
Content Standard A: “Different kinds of questions
suggest different kinds of scientific investigations.
Some investigations involved making models” (p.
148)
Content Standard C Life Science (p. 156)
Content Standard A: “They [students] should develop
abilities to design and conduct a scientific
investigation; to develop description, explanations,
predictions, and models using evidence” (p. 145)
Content Standard C Life Science (pp. 156 and 157)
Content Standard A: “Different kinds of
questions . . . . .” (p. 148)
Content Standard C (p. 156)
Content Standard A: “Different kinds of questions . . . ”
(p. 148)
Content Standard C (p. 156)
Content Standard B Physical Science (p. 154)
Content Standard C Life Sciences (pp. 155 and 156)
Continued
Teacher scatters “food” objects in
various locations, students
attempt to find all the objects.
Discuss factors that shape how
birds locate food
Students examine structure and
functions of different kinds of
feathers
Students examine air flow over a
wing, role of feathers in flight
Students construct food webs,
discuss role of birds
Students learn unique features of
Aves
Students use household objects
to determine how shapes of
the objects affect ability to pick
up or open seed objects.
Discussion of adaptations
SUPPORTING INQUIRY
897
Teachers
Postactivities
a
A. Read a letter from
the lab and
National
Classroom
Birdscope
B. Administer the
postproject
questionnaire
15. What can we
learn from our own
questions?
Titles of
Individual Activities
Discussion of two assessment
measures in addition to those
in explorations.
Students pick questions to
explore, design procedures to
gather data, set up
investigations, collect, record
and analyze data, present
findings. Four pages
Content Standard A: “Fundamental concepts and
abilities that underlie this standard-identify questions
that can be answered through scientific
investigations; use appropriate techniques to gather,
analyze and interpret data: develop explanations,
predictions, and models using evidence; think
critically and logically to make the relationships
between evidence, models, and explanations;
recognize and analyze alternative explanations and
predictions; communicate scientific procedures and
explanations; use mathematics in all aspects of
scientific inquiry.” (pp. 145 and 148)
Content Standard G (p. 170)
Overview of Learning Activities
Goals or Standards addresseda
When the Standard addressed is not a specific inquiry standard, we refer only to its title and page number.
Assessment
Audience
Sections of the
CFW Curriculum
(Continued )
898
TRUMBULL ET AL.
SUPPORTING INQUIRY
899
REFERENCES
AAAS (1989). Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: Author.
AAAS (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, R. D., & Helms, J. V. (2001). The ideal of standards and the reality of schools: Needed research. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 3 – 16.
Bencze, L., & Hodson, D. (1999). Changing practice by changing practice: Toward a more authentic science and
science curriculum development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(5), 521 – 539.
Blumenfeld, P., Krajcik, J., Marx, R., & Soloway, E. (1994). Lessons learned: A collaborative model for helping
teachers learn project-based instruction. Elementary School Journal, 94, 539 – 551.
Bybee, R. W. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. H. van Zee, (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry
learning and teaching in science (pp. 20 – 46). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement
of Science.
Collins, A. (1998). National science education standards: A political document. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 35(7), 711 – 727.
Cornell Office of Communication Strategies. (1995). Project FeederWatch survey: Report of findings.
Ithaca, NY.
DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Finley, F. N., & Pocovi, M. C. (2000). Considering the scientific method of inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. H. van
Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 47 – 62). Washington, DC: American
Association for the Advancement of Science.
Germann, P. J., Aram, R., & Burkey, G. (1996a). Identifying patterns and relationships among the responses of
seventh-grade students to the science process skill of designing experiments. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 33(1), 79 – 99.
Germann, P. J., Haskins, S., & Auls, S. (1996b). Analysis of nine high school biology laboratory manuals:
Promoting scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(5), 475 – 499.
Hartup, B. K., Bickal, J. M., Dhondt, A. A., Ley, D. H., & Kollias, G. V. (2001). Dynamics of conjunctivitis and
Mycoplasma gallisepticum infections in house finches. Auk, 118, 327 – 333.
Herron, M. D. (1971). The nature of scientific inquiry. School Review, 79, 171 – 212.
Hickey, D. T., Kindfield, A.C. H., Horwitz, P., & Christie, M. A. T. (2003). Integrating curriculum, instruction,
assessment, and evaluation in a technology---supported genetics learning environment. American Educational
Research Journal, 40(2), 495 – 538.
Hochachka, W. M., & Dhondt, A. A. (2000). Density-dependent decline of host abundance resulting from a new
infectious disease. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97, 5503 – 5306.
Hochachka, W. M., Wells, J. V., Rosenberg, , K. V., Tessaglia-Hymes, D. L., & Dhondt, A. A. (1999). Irruptive
migration of common redpolls. Condor 101, 195 – 204.
Hodson, D. (1988). Toward a philosophically more valid science curriculum. Science Education, 72, 19 – 40.
Hodson, D. (1996). Laboratory work as science method: Three decades of confusion and distortion. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 28(2), 115 – 135.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century.
Science Education, 88(1), 28 – 54.
Lepage, D., & Francis, C. (2002). Do feeder counts reliably indicate bird population changes? 21 years of winter
bird counts in Ontario, Canada. Condor, 104, 255 – 270.
Lynch, S. (1997). Novice teachers’ encounters with national science education reform: Entanglements or intelligent
interconnections? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1) 3 – 17.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Polman, J. L. (2000). Designing project-based science: Connecting learners through guided inquiry. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Posnanski, T. J. (2002). Professional development programs for elementary science teachers: An analysis of
teacher self-efficacy beliefs and a professional development model. Journal of Science Teacher Education,
13(2), 189 – 220.
Ryder, J., & Leach, J. (2000). Interpreting experimental data: The views of upper secondary school and university
science students. International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 1060 – 1079.
Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as inquiry. In J. J. Schwab & P. F. Brandweine (Eds.), The teaching
of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Stewart, J., & Rudolph, J. L. (2001). Considering the nature of scientific problems when designing science curricula.
Science Education, 85(3), 207 – 222.
Tamir, P., & Lunetta, V. N. (1978). An analysis of laboratory inquiries in the BSCS yellow version. American
Biology Teacher, 40, 353 – 357.
900
TRUMBULL ET AL.
Trumbull, D. J., Bonney, R., Bascome, D., & Cabral, A. (2000). Thinking scientifically during participation in a
citizen-science project. Science Education, 84(2), 265 – 275.
Varelas, M. (1996). Between theory and data in a seventh grade science class. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 33(3), 229 – 263.
Vellum, R. P., & Anderson, D. W. (1999). Reasoning about data in middle school science. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 36(2), 179 – 199.
Weiss, C. H. (1998). Evaluation (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Welch, W., Klopfer, L., Aikenhead, G., & Robinson, J. (1981). The role of inquiry in science education: Analysis
and recommendations. Science Education, 65, 33 – 50.
Wells, J. V., Rosenberg, K. V., Dunn, E. H., Tessaglia, D. L., & Dhondt, A. A. (1998). Feeder counts as indicators of
spatial and temporal variation in winter abundance of resident birds. Journal of Field Ornithology, 69, 577 – 586.
White, R. T. (1996). The link between the laboratory and learning. International Journal of Science Education,
18(7), 761 – 774.
Windschitl, M. (2001). Independent inquiry projects for pre-service science teachers: Their capacity to reflect on
the experience and to integrate inquiry into their own teaching. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.