Teaching High School Science Through Inquiry and Argumentation 2nbsped 1452244456 9781452244457 Compress

2
Edition
Teaching
High School
Science
Through
Inquiry and
Argumentation
2
Edition
Teaching
High School
Science
Through
Inquiry and
Argumentation
Douglas
Llewellyn
FOR INFORMATION: Copyright © 2013 by Corwin
Corwin All rights reserved. When forms and sample documents are
A SAGE Company included, their use is authorized only by educators, local school
2455 Teller Road sites, and/or noncommercial or nonprofit entities that have
Thousand Oaks, California 91320 purchased the book. Except for that usage, no part of this book
(800) 233-9936
may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or
www.corwin.com
by any information storage and retrieval system, without
permission in writing from the publisher.
SAGE Publications Ltd.
1 Oliver’s Yard All trade names and trademarks recited, referenced, or reflected
55 City Road herein are the property of their respective owners who retain all
London EC1Y 1SP rights thereto.
United Kingdom
SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd.

B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area Printed in the United States of America.
Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
India
Llewellyn, Douglas.
SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd.
3 Church Street Teaching high school science through inquiry and argumentation /
#10-04 Samsung Hub Douglas J. Llewellyn. — Second edition.
Singapore 049483
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-4522-4445-7 (pbk.: alk. paper)
1. Science — Study and teaching (Secondary) 2. Inquiry (Theory

of knowledge) I. Title.
Q181.L75 2013
507.1′2—dc23 2012036934
Acquisitions Editor: Robin Najar This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Associate Editor: Julie Nemer
Editorial Assistant: Mayan N. White
Production Editor: Cassandra Margaret Seibel
Copy Editor: Ashley Horne
Typesetter: C&M Digitals (P) Ltd.
Proofreader: Caryne Brown
Indexer: J. Naomi Linzer
Cover Designer: Michael Dubowe
Permissions Editor: Adele Hutchinson 12 13 14 15 16 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Contents
Preface ix
About the Author xviii
1. Constructing an Understanding of Inquiry 1
Three Designations of Inquiry 1
What the National Science Education Standards Say About Inquiry 3
What A Framework for K−12 Science Education and the Next
Generation Science Standards Say About Inquiry 4
Inquiry as a Three-Legged Stool 5
Seven Segments of Scientific Inquiry 6
The Pretzel Theory of Science Inquiry 9
Inquiry as a Human Endeavor 9
Ten Beliefs (and Rebuttals) About Inquiry-Based Learning 10
What Science Inquiry Is—What Science Inquiry Isn’t 14
A Definition of Scientific Inquiry 15
Questions for Reflection and Discussion 16
2. Constructing an Understanding of Scientific Argumentation 18
The Influence of Media 18
What Is a Scientific Argument? 19
Parts of an Argument 20
Making a Case for Argumentation 21
What the National Science Education Standards Say About Argumentation 22
What the Common Core State Standards Say About Argumentation 23
What A Framework for K−12 Science Education and the
Next Generation Science Standards Say About Argumentation 26
Different Types of Reasoning 28
Flaws in Scientific Reasoning 28
Scaffolding Argumentation in the Classroom 29
The Classroom as a Courtroom 37
Painting a Picture of What Real Scientists Do 37
3. Learning About Inquiry and Argumentation Through Case Studies 41
A Case Study Approach 41
A Case Study: Inquiring About Isopods 42
The Inquiry Cycle 48
Brainstorming 50
4. Choosing to Become an Inquiry-Based Teacher 53
A Choice in Teaching 53
Self-Directed Learning 55
The Top 10 Reasons Why Teachers Say They Can’t
Teach Through Inquiry 56
Myths and Misconceptions About Inquiry-Based Teaching 57
What’s Your Instructional Pie? 57
Steps in Becoming an Inquiry-Based Teacher 60
Monitoring Your Progress 61
The Case of Angela Bicknell 62
5. Developing a Philosophy for Inquiry 65
What Is Constructivism? 66
Traditional Versus Constructivist Classrooms 66
Historical Perspectives of Constructivism 70
Constructivism Today 75
Metacognition 76
How Adolescents Learn 77
Misconceptions 78
Conceptual Change Theory 81
Making Sense of Language 83
The 5E Learning Cycle 83
Challenges to Creating a Constructivist Classroom 88
All Things Are Possible 90
Case Study: Investigating Yeast 91
6. Four Levels of Science Inquiry 100
Promoting Student Inquiries 100
Invitation to Inquiry 101
Demonstrated Inquiries 102
Structured Inquiries 103
Guided or Teacher-Initiated Inquiries 105
Self-Directed or Student-Initiated Inquiries 106
Guiding Students Into Inquiry 107
Differentiated Science Inquiry 112
Case Study 1: Bottle Ecosystems 114
Case Study 2: The Finger Lakes Regional Stream Monitoring Network 119
7. Modifying a Lab Activity Into an Inquiry- and
Argument-Based Investigation 124
The Role of the Laboratory in Science 124
New Approaches to Traditional Labs 126
Modifying a Traditional Lab Into an Inquiry-Based Lab 132
Addressing Misconceptions About Density 134
Scaffolding Toward Inquiry 134
Writing an Inquiry/Argument-Based Lab Report 140
The Current Debate About High School Science Labs 141
Case Study: The Hydrate Lab 142
8. Managing the Inquiry-Based Classroom 146
The Implementation Curve 146
Challenges to Inquiry-Based Teaching 147
Making Time for Inquiry and Argumentation 148
Avoiding a Lockstep Approach 154
Establishing the Right Atmosphere 155
Assessing and Monitoring Your Classroom Management Strategies 157
Case Study: Investigating Contour Lines 158
9. Developing Effective Questioning Skills 164
The Purpose of Questions 165
Bloom’s Taxonomy 166
Expository Questions 169
Quality Questions Model Quality Thinking 169
Questioning Techniques 170
Just Tell Me the Answer 175
The Power of Praise and Positive Reinforcement 176
A Three-Step Approach to Better Questioning 176
Recalibrate Your Questioning Skills 178
Exploratory Questions 179
Case Study: Designing a Professional Development Plan 184
10. Assessing Scientific Inquiry 190
The Anxiety Over Assessment 190
Curriculum Alignment 191
Formative and Summative Assessment Tools 192
Designing Assessments 193
Choosing the Right Test Item 194
Using Multiple Assessments 195
Authentic Assessments 195
Transitioning to New Assessments 205
Case Study: Measuring and Assessing Centripetal Force 206
11. Creating a Classroom Culture of Inquiry and Argumentation 213
The Environment of a Traditional Classroom 215
The Environment of an Inquiry-Based Classroom 216
Students in an Inquiry-Based Classroom 216
Teachers in an Inquiry-Based Classroom 219
A Classroom Culture That Fosters Inquiry and Argumentation 222
Reflecting on a Teaching Career 228
Final Thoughts: Your Legacy 231
Resource A: Resources for High School Science Teachers 234

Print Resources on Scientific Inquiry and Argumentation 234
Print Resources on Inquiry- and Argument-Based Investigations 236
Print Resources on Constructivism 238
Print Resources on Science Standards and Science Literacy 239
Print Resources on Assessment 240
Print Resources on General Science Areas 241
Multimedia Resources on Scientific Inquiry and Argumentation 241
Online Resources on Scientific Inquiry and Argumentation 241
Professional Organizations 243
Resource B: Bottle Handout 246
References 247
Index 252
Preface
Achieving Scientific Literacy

One of the primary purposes of teaching is to heighten and achieve a level of literacy.
When we think of a literate person, we picture one schooled with specific knowledge,
skills, and dispositions in a particular subject matter. In the case of science, when defining
a scientifically literate individual, Flick and Lederman (2006) suggest that contemporary
conceptions include the foundations of scientific inquiry and the nature of science.
Although I agree with Flick and Lederman, I would add, however, given the advent of A
Framework for K−12 Science Education (National Research Council [NRC], 2012), a new
footing for literacy—scientific argumentation. Therefore, it is the intention throughout
this book to provide an examination of the interrelationship among four topics: scientific
literacy, inquiry, argumentation, and the nature of science.
Historical Context
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), in Science for All
Americans (1990), defines a scientifically literate person as possessing several facets: a
familiarity with the natural world and its unity; an understanding of key laws, principles,
and theories that govern science; the capacity to think scientifically, knowing that science,
like mathematics and technology, is a human endeavor with its own strengths and limita-
tions; and the ability to use scientific knowledge and process to address personal and
societal challenges. The National Science Education Standards (NSES) (NRC, 1996) take a
similar approach, stating, “Scientific literacy is the knowledge and understanding of sci-
entific concepts and process required for personal decision making, participation in civic
and cultural affairs, and economic productivity” (p. 22). As a lifelong process, developing
from the school years and throughout adulthood, attaining scientific literacy, as the
Standards go on to state, means “a person can ask, find, or determine answers to questions
derived from curiosity about everyday experiences. It means the individual has the abil-
ity to describe, explain, and predict natural phenomena” (p. 22). From these definitions,
we begin to appreciate the impossibility of divorcing inquiry, argumentation, and the
nature of science from its underpinning—scientific literacy. Developing scientifically lit-
erate students equates to your evolving understanding of scientific inquiry. Like the
strands of a braided rope, the four are tightly coupled.
Like many others, the NRC (1998) argues that achieving science literacy means
achieving for all students, not different standards or different instructional programs for
particular groups of students. In a democratic society, we should seek attainment for all
equally and without exception. Given this goal, the challenges facing teachers today put
ix
x TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION
a tremendous burden on them, especially when considering the amount of subject

content being crammed into the schools’ curriculum and loaded into high-stakes stan-
dardized testing throughout America’s schools. Just looking at the number of pages in a
typical high school science textbook today causes us to think about how much content is
demanded of today’s students. These days it’s not unusual to find a high school science
textbook with 500-plus pages.
Despite these demands, science educators need to look no further than the morning
newspaper to read about new technological advances and potential hazards we encoun-
ter each day: acid rain, global warming, environmental pollution, and cloning; new semi-
conductors, new viruses, new galaxies, new fuels, and new practically everything else.
The rational decision-making process about these growing issues and technologies will
necessitate a scientifically literate population. Furthermore, scrutinizing the issues will
require a society that can distinguish between scientific claims that are supported by con-
crete evidence and those that are not.
James Trefil provides us with a broadened scope of the issue. According to Trefil (2003),
A person is scientifically literate if he or she can deal with scientific matters that
come across the horizon of public life with the same ease as an educated person
would exhibit in dealing with matters political, legal, or economic. In a society
that is becoming increasingly driven by science and technology, a society in which
the citizenry is increasingly called upon to deal with issues that contain a large
scientific or technical component, this kind of literacy isn’t a luxury—it’s a
necessity. (p. 151)
In that same light, several proponents of science literacy (DeBoer, 2000; Sutman, 2001)
suggest that achieving a citizenry that is scientifically literate will be difficult, if not
impossible, unless educators at the elementary and secondary school levels become clear
themselves about the meaning of literacy for their particular field and practice the reform
efforts proclaimed by the Benchmarks, the National Science Education Standards (NRC,
1996), and now the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) (NRC, 2013).
A Call for Instructional Reform

It has been three decades since the National Commission on Excellence in Education
(NCEE), a blue-ribbon commission appointed by President Reagan, released A Nation at
Risk (NCEE, 1983). Referring to the “rising tide of mediocrity” in American education,
this disturbing report cited the status of education in the United States and called on the
nation to raise its expectations for all students by developing rigorous and measurable
content and performance standards and better preparing and rewarding teachers. In A
Nation at Risk, the commission recommended that all high school students complete 3
years of science in addition to 4 years of English, 3 years of mathematics, 3 years of social
studies, and a half year of computer science.
Also in 1995, and again in 1999, the Third International Mathematics and Science
Study (TIMSS) confirmed that our students, especially middle and high school students,
were still not meeting levels of global competitiveness. Eighth-grade students were scor-
ing near the median in science when compared to their international counterparts,
whereas high school students were scoring near the bottom. It has also been two decades
since two nationally prominent scientific organizations, AAAS and the National Research
PREFACE
xi
Council, have identified the benchmarks and the framework for this nation to develop a
scientifically literate society and compete in a global economic society. In their respective
publications, Benchmark for Science Literacy (AAAS, 1993) and the National Science Education
Standards (NRC, 1996), each organization identified content and performance standards
outlining specifically what students need to know and be able to do at grade levels K−12.
The NRC took a further step in advocating how to meet the standards through profes-
sional and program development. In the NSES (NRC, 1996), recommendations are made
to position elementary and secondary school students to be internationally competitive
with their counterparts in other highly developed industrial countries.
One espoused recommendation from all organizations is the infusion of inquiry-
based instruction as an enduring understanding, as well as pedagogy, for teaching sci-
ence. Moreover, the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) identified inquiry as
the preferred method of instruction for both teaching and professional development.
Therefore, the national standards suggest elementary and secondary school science teach-
ers develop an inquiry-based science program for their students and a community of
learners who reflect the intellectual rigor of attitudes and social values conducive to sci-
entific inquiry. In addition, the professional development of science teachers requires
learning science content through the perspectives and methods of inquiry (NRC, 1996).
Adding to the charge for instructional reform in science as well as mathematics came
the report in 2000 from the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching
(2000) for the 21st century, Before It’s Too Late. Former astronaut and Ohio Senator John
Glenn headed the commission, calling for an educated citizenry; the commission cited
the process of inquiry as the kind of science instruction that can justifiably be called
“high-quality teaching.”
On January 8, 2002, President George Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind
Act. This landmark piece of legislation was designed to ensure that no child in America
be left behind through educational reforms based on accountability and additional fund-
ing for states and school districts from the federal level. Now, as we enter the second
decade of the 21st century, once again we hear the emphasis on science, technology, engi-
neering, and math (STEM) from President Barack Obama’s “Educate to Innovate.” This
program will again emphasize the importance of STEM initiatives to foster educational
reform in K−12 science as we proceed through this decade. For more information
on Educate to Innovate, go online to www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/
educate-innovate.
Now with the onset of two new standards projects, Common Core State Standards
(CCSS) Initiative and A Framework for K−12 Science Education (to evolve into the Next
Generation Science Standards), high school science teachers should be mindful of the focus
on having students develop competencies and practices in both inquiry-based and argu-
ment-based instruction. According to the NRC (2012), the Framework provides a vision
of what it means to be literate and proficient in science. Furthermore, the Framework
proposes a vision for science education as a collective body of knowledge and as an
evidence-based model that continually extends, refines, and revises knowledge. This new
vision will be achieved through the teachers’ ability to teach amid scientific inquiry and
scientific argumentation (which will be introduced later in Chapters 1 and 2). This direc-
tion regenerates the emphasis from previous standards documents, citing inquiry as a
centerpiece for science instruction and placing argument-based discussions on the hori-
zon for science curriculum and reform.
Thus, in getting ahead of the curve by incorporating argumentation, science leaders
should initiate opportunities where teachers learn to modify their existing inquiry labs
xii TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION
into a format where students develop precise claims supported by evidence and, further-
more, justify and defend such claims in oral and written arguments to their peers. During
these arguments, other students will be encouraged to present rebuttals, counterclaims,
and alternative explanations. Throughout this process, the Next Generation Science
Standards envisages that students will gain a more authentic view of the nature of science
and develop proficiency skills in reasoning and communication.
Note that in 2010, the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) developed the
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for English/Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social
Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects. A section of the CCSS identifies standards for
English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical
Subjects divided by grade level juncture for K−5, 6–8, and 9–12. Of particular interest to
middle and high school science teachers is the section on Reading Standards for Literacy
in Science and Technical Subjects, 6–12 and Writing Standards for Literacy in History/
Social Studies, Science and Technical Subjects, 6–12. For more information on the Common
Core State Standards see www.corestandards.org. For information on the Framework see
the NSTA Web site at www.nsta.org or the National Academies Web site (www.nap.edu)
where you can read or order the full document. For information on the Next Generation
Science Standards, see www.nextgenscience.org.
What Needs to Happen

in the Science Classroom?
Given the 30-plus years of blue-ribbon commissions and committees, the overwhelming
emphasis for science education suggests that high school science teachers follow a stan-
dards-based curriculum and develop teaching competencies and strategies that provide
engaging, inquiry-based investigations for students.
At the K–12 level, teachers need to hone their understandings of what it means to be
scientifically literate, read books and articles on the subject, and have in-depth discus-
sions about the impact of science in today’s classrooms. Curriculum coordinators need to
emphasize an inquiry-based approach for all students throughout all levels of the dis-
trict’s learning outcomes. Science supervisors need to provide teachers with effective and
ongoing professional development that advances the latest standards and science literacy.
School administrators need to hire teachers familiar with reform standards; with the com-
petencies to teach through inquiry, argumentation, and problem-solving modes; and with
the ability to create learner-centered classrooms. It is only through a multifaceted
approach that school districts will achieve literacy in science for their students.
As science educators, we begin our pathway to becoming inquiry-based teachers by
asking two questions: What is the purpose of inquiry? and Why do we aspire to teach
through inquiry? To answer the first question, the purpose of inquiry is not to instill curi-
osity in students but rather to discover it: curiosity and inquisitiveness already lie within
the individual—awaiting opportunities to be revealed and made known. To answer the
second question, we teach science through inquiry because it’s part of what it means to
be scientifically literate: inquiry opens the mind to question the natural world, allowing
nature to gradually reveal its secrets. We teach through inquiry when we realize that
every child is a born inquirer—coining the scientific name, Homo sapiens inquisitus. We
teach through inquiry when we realize that beyond memorizing the seemingly endless
list of vocabulary terms, remembering the formulas for chemical equations, and recalling
the laws and principles of physics, our first and foremost responsibility is to instill in
PREFACE
xiii
students an appreciation, or even a love, for learning science. That passion for combining
scientific literacy with the joy of learning commences with students exploring, discover-
ing, and revealing the nature of science through inquiry investigations.
Although I endorse the direction of the new standards, the quantity of books for pre-
service and practicing high school science teachers, unfortunately, does not match the
need for information required to address these standards in the 9–12 classroom and, at
the same time, adopt an inquiry-based teaching practice. There appears to be an abundant
supply of inquiry-based resources for elementary and middle school teachers but far too
few for the high school teachers to meet the call for instructional reform. Teaching High
School Science Through Inquiry and Argumentation was written to fill that gap. This book
focuses on raising a teacher’s capacity to teach science through inquiry- and argument-
based processes, as stated by the national standards and leading science education
experts. It is a companion book to Inquire Within: Implementing Inquiry-Based Science
Standards in Grades 3–8, second edition (Llewellyn, 2007). Whereas Inquire Within focuses
primarily on elementary and middle school grades, this book specifically addresses the
needs of science teachers in grades 9–12. The resources are similar in format. Because of
the commonalities of inquiry-based learning at the elementary and secondary school
levels, similar or recurring sections and diagrams may be found in both books. In the end,
both books were written to raise the instructional capacity of all science teachers inter-
ested in becoming exemplary science teachers and taking incremental steps toward meet-
ing the new national science standards.
What’s New About the

Second Edition
The second edition of Teaching High School Science Through Inquiry encompasses several
changes. First of all, more emphasis is placed on developing the requisite attitude and
mind-set for becoming an inquiry-based teacher: balancing the meaning (the disposition)
as well as the mechanics (the how-to) of inquiry.
Readers will also find more case studies, investigations, and vignettes of inquiry-
based activities than in the previous edition. The inquiry examples are correlated to the
Framework and are written in a teacher-friendly lesson format for easy implementation
in your classroom. The chapters on assessment, classroom management, and questioning
skills have been enhanced with more suggestions for practitioners. The major and most
significant change in the second edition is the new focus on scientific argumentation.
Although argumentation has been studied in select science circles for the last 10 years, it
now sits on the horizon of instructional reform as the new Common Core State Standards
and the Framework/NGSS are merged into state and district curricula. The second edition
emphasizes this new direction of the standards and shows the harmonious marriage of
scientific inquiry and argumentation. Their natural pairing is the yin and yang of scien-
tific literacy. For that reason the second edition has been retitled Teaching High School
Science Through Inquiry and Argumentation.
Making an Argument for Inquiry

In my opinion, science is fundamentally an argument-based subject. Its underpinnings
evolve through painstaking investigation, analysis, model building, communication, argu-
mentation, and modification. That is why argumentation plays such a significant role in
xiv TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION
this second edition. Yet not all teachers endorse this view of science. For some teachers
who see science as an accumulation of principles, formulas, and dogma, the Framework
and the Next Generation Science Standards may be irrelevant and immaterial, while for
proponents of inquiry-based teaching, the national standards that integrate science
inquiry and argumentation are a heralded event.
So in light of these contrasting points of view, I won’t debate the issue within this
book but instead have chosen to model the argumentation process as well as show that
argumentation is a seamless fit in the scientific inquiry process. I do this in part by entic-
ing you to look at both sides of an argument, viewing an assertion as two sides of the
same coin. Adopting this stance provides intellectual balance and fosters a greater appre-
ciation for the scope of the issue.
Likewise, throughout the book as well as the Questions for Reflection and Discussion
sections at the end of the chapter, claims will be made and arguments will be presented.
In some cases, you will read passages from science experts; other times you will read
statements from actual high school science teachers. In either case, challenge their state-
ments. Offer rebuttals to the examples given. As you read through the chapters look for
“trigger verbs” that imply making a claim: argue, assert, believe, emphasize, insist, state, or
suggest. Watch for trigger words that imply disagreement: but, yet, nevertheless, or however.
And notice trigger verbs that counter an argument: contradict, refute, or renounce. The trig-
ger words will tip you off to the position taken by the individual in an argument. A well-
structured argument includes examining an issue, testing assumptions, making and
asserting a claim, offering supporting evidence, communicating the claim, and being
open to opposing arguments and counterclaims.
Through the modeling of the argumentation process in this book, I hope you will gain
a greater understanding of how to frame an argument. The idea for modeling argumenta-
tion within the chapters came after I read They Say/I Say: The Moves that Matter in Academic
Writing by Graff and Birkenstein (2010). In the book, the authors present various tem-
plates (or starter sentences) for composing an argument. I have adapted Graff and
Birkenstein’s format and applied it to our study of incorporating argumentation within
the context of scientific inquiry. Although there are no clear-cut, hard-and-fast rules for
facilitating an argument-based science discussion, the examples below serve as templates
for students to state their opinions or respond to others. Templates or starter sentences
include phrases such as the following:
“Jessie argues that _______. I agree with him because _______.”

“Jessie argues that _______; however, I disagree with him because _______. Therefore,
I offer a contrasting conclusion that _______.”
“On the one hand, I agree with Nicole about _______, while on the other, I disagree
with her about _______.”
“When it comes to _______, I feel too many high school science teachers assume
_______. On the contrary, I think _______.”
As you provide prompts like the ones listed above, your students will soon be able to
develop their own opinions and rebuttals—thus enhancing their ability to express scien-
tific viewpoints with supporting evidence.
As a cheerleader for scientific argumentation and one who poses positions and opin-
ions throughout the chapters, I realize that academic and professional development
books frown on using the first-person pronoun, “I.” In some cases, not a lot, I will break
PREFACE
xv
the rule to express opinions, as in “I believe . . .” or “I claim . . .” Trust me; I will use the
“I” word judiciously.
By entering into the conversation about argumentation, you should come to appre-
ciate why arguments matter in science. For those still asking, “Who cares?” I contend
that although inquiry and argumentation may be of concern to only a small (yet grow-
ing) number of high school science teachers, it should in fact concern everyone who
cares about promoting science literacy. Anyone reading the Framework can see how
fundamentally important analysis and skepticism are in developing a scientifically
literate society.
Lastly, I trust that readers familiar with the previous edition will welcome the added
material about scientific inquiry, argumentation, and questioning strategies. I hope that
this new edition will assist both preservice and practicing high school teachers in inte-
grating scientific inquiry and argumentation into their classes. As you create a classroom
culture of scientific inquiry and argumentation, I welcome your comments and sugges-
tions, as well as your experiences and stories.
Who This Book Is Written For

As a high school science teacher, you might feel you are already a good hands-on teacher,
but you want to take the next step in becoming an inquiry-based teacher. You may have
read about inquiry in your undergraduate-level courses in preparation for becoming a
secondary-level science teacher, or may have studied about scientific inquiry at the grad-
uate school level. Maybe you have read articles about inquiry in The Science Teacher or The
American Biology Teacher and wondered, “Am I an inquiry teacher?” Or maybe you feel
pretty savvy in teaching through inquiry and now ask, “What’s next?” For many teachers
already competent in teaching through inquiry, taking the next step into differentiating
your science inquiries or incorporating scientific argumentation into your lessons would
be a natural extension to take your inquiry investigations to the next level.
This book is predicated on the question, “How can we expect our students to engage
in inquiry and argument-based activities if we, as teachers, do not have a sufficient
understanding of inquiry ourselves?” Teaching High School Science Through Inquiry and
Argumentation will enable you to articulate, in detail, your understandings, attitudes, and
dispositions in becoming an inquiry teacher. It will also help you to describe practically
why this mode of teaching fits your own “chemistry” as a high school science teacher.
As a teacher undergoing the process of National Board Certification (NBC), this book
also provides useful examples and background information as you complete the applica-
tion process and prepare for your portfolio submission for Entry 2: Active Scientific
Inquiry. Since the science certification for adolescents and young adulthood includes
requirements to demonstrate active student engagement and participation, teachers seek-
ing NBC will need to be versed in scientific inquiry. For more information about the
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) and the National Board
Certification, see www.nbpts.org.
As a science supervisor, teacher/leader, curriculum specialist, or principal interested
in improving science literacy in your high school, you will find in this book suggestions
for facilitating professional development in inquiry-based instruction and the mechanism
for engaging faculty in meaningful dialogue about scientific inquiry and effective teach-
ing toward improving student achievement. Science department heads or teacher/
mentors may be interested in forming a professional development/collegial study group
xvi TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION
to design and share lessons on inquiry. In this case, the case studies and reflection ques-
tions provide a means to initiate a discussion on inquiry-based strategies.
If you are a higher education professor concerned about providing preservice and
graduate-level students with appropriate instruction in the methodology of scientific
inquiry and argumentation, this book, together with Educating Teachers of Science,
Mathematics, and Technology: New Practices for a New Millennium (NRC, 2001a), presents an
introduction to instructional reform and suggestions for creating a student-centered class-
room fostering inquiry and scientific argumentation. With the arrival of the Common
Core State Standards, the Framework, and the Next Generation Science Standards, preser-
vice faculty have an additional obligation to prepare their students with the foundation
as well as the proficiency to teach through scientific argumentation. As future science
teachers, today’s undergraduate students will lead the next generation of high school
pupils in science lessons that need to foster the critical thinking skills required for literacy
in the 21st century.
Competency in inquiry-based instruction is not developed solely by providing
inquiry lessons to high school students or by giving them opportunities to do inquiry-
based labs. The process is more than that. Inquiry is a personal and professional journey
that starts with developing a constructivist-based philosophy and reflecting, both indi-
vidually and with others, on your instructional beliefs and practices. In The Courage to
Teach, Parker Palmer (1998) says, “Good teaching cannot be reduced to technique; good
teaching comes from the identity and integrity of the teacher” (p. 10).
You may begin your journey by accepting an invitation to inquire within the pages of
this book. At the completion of this journey, you should expect to gain enough confidence
in inquiry-based instruction to invite your students to begin their own journeys.
As you work your way through this book, keep in mind this word of caution: Don’t
expect to become an inquiry-based teacher in just 1 year. Refining your skills and strate-
gies takes time. I often say, “You need a Crock-Pot to cook inquiry, not a microwave!” In
most cases, teachers may need 3 to 5 years to perfect their inquiry teaching techniques.
There are no shortcuts. Be patient—with persistence and peer coaching, you will find
yourself becoming more comfortable using inquiry teaching strategies and appropriate
questioning techniques to bring about instructional changes in your classroom. According
to the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996), “Teachers can be effective guides
for students learning science only if they have the opportunity to examine their beliefs, as
well as to develop an understanding of the tenets on which the Standards are based”
(p. 28). This book was written to serve that purpose.
Warning: This book contains language some teachers may find unsuitable for stu-
dents. Several words include engage, inquire, explore, argue, think critically, justify, and
defend. Teacher discretion is advised.
Acknowledgments
Over the years, I have had the privilege of working with many exemplary science educa-
tors. I sincerely appreciate the contributions and support from many gifted science
teachers and friends in writing the second edition of this book. Some were sources of
inspiration; others were colleagues similarly interested in inquiry. A few were partici-
pants in an inquiry support group, and some were editors and writers who helped me
make sense of my thoughts. Heartfelt appreciation goes out to Ronald Bailey, Susan Holt,
Dr. Dina Markowitz, Dr. Douglas Merrill, Scott Michel, Joann Morreale, Shelia Myers,
PREFACE
xvii
Joanne Niemi, Michael Occhino, Lindsay Orzel, Lynn Panton, Dr. Barney Ricca, Deborah
Daino Stack, Kathi Sigler, Dr. John Travers, Kim Voss, George Wolfe, and Jordan
Youngman.
I also received enormous support from a stellar team of professionals from Corwin,
especially Cathy Hernandez, who constantly provides guidance and an occasional boost
of confidence.
In addition to those mentioned above, I appreciate the encouragement from my fam-
ily and dedicate this book to my two grandchildren, Katelyn and Allison. Even though
Katie is only in day school and Allie is still in diapers, I hope by the time they get to high
school, learning through inquiry and argumentation will be an everyday, commonplace
experience.
Douglas Llewellyn
Rochester, New York
About the Author
Douglas Llewellyn teaches science education courses at St. John Fisher

College (Rochester, NY). Previously, he was the K−12 director of science at
the Rochester City School District, a junior high school principal, and a
middle school science teacher. Recently he codirected a program to develop
K−12 teacher/leaders in mathematics and science. Llewellyn’s research
interests are in the areas of scientific inquiry, argumentation, constructivist
teaching, and science leadership.
Doug writes on science education and leadership topics for NSTA and other profes-
sional journals. He is a frequent speaker at state and national science conferences. His
previous books, all by Corwin, include the following:
•• Inquire Within: Implementing Inquiry-Based Science Standards (2002)

•• Teaching High School Science Through Inquiry: A Case Study Approach (2005)
•• Inquire Within: Implementing Inquiry-Based Science Standards in Grades 3–8, 2nd edi-
tion (2007)
•• Facilitator’s Guide to Inquire Within: Implementing Inquiry-Based Science Standards in
Grades 3–8, 2nd edition (2009)
•• Differentiated Science Inquiry (2011)
Doug is an avid major league baseball fan. His favorite teams are the Boston Red Sox
and the Minnesota Twins. During the summer months, he is usually cruising the New
York State Finger Lakes and the Erie Canal aboard his restored 1962 Lyman wooden boat.
He can be reached at dllewellyn@sjfc.edu or dllewell@rochester.rr.com.
xviii
1
Constructing an
Understanding of Inquiry
Three Designations of Inquiry

One of the most debated topics in science education over the last 15 years has been
inquiry. Whether you are discussing science literacy, the nature of science, standards,
instructional strategies, or assessment, sooner or later the word inquiry will likely work
its way into the conversation. Thus for many teachers, constructing an understanding of
inquiry becomes a fundamental necessity to contribute to an intellectual discussion on
science education. Since the primary purpose of this book is to enable high school science
teachers to develop an understanding of inquiry and to gain an appreciation of the skills,
dispositions, and attitudes in creating a “classroom culture of inquiry” within themselves
as well as their classrooms, we will start with three designations that are often tossed
about as if they were actually all the same: inquiry, science inquiry, and scientific inquiry.
For the sake of this book, we will define and attempt to use each term differently. When
referring to inquiry, we will use the term in the general, broad spectrum of inquiring—
posing questions, searching for answers, probing counterintuitive phenomena, or just sim-
ply acting inquisitively. In this wide-ranging sense, science certainly does not have the
monopoly on inquiry—one can find inquiry-based teaching and learning in any subject
area and at any grade level. When we refer to science inquiry, we will speak to those sci-
ence activities and investigations that are characteristic of inquiry-based instruction: inves-
tigations that are predicated upon a question, whether posed by the teacher, the science
textbook, or the students themselves. In Chapter 7, four different levels of science inquiries
are presented. In the ensuing chapters, you will find numerous examples of science inqui-
ries to illustrate ideas and understandings made throughout the book. Lastly, when we
refer to scientific inquiry, we will denote critical thinking skills, reasoning skills, and habits
of mind employed during the process of doing a scientific investigation. Scientific inquiry
also involves and engages the student’s knowledge, skills, and attitudes.
1
2 TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE THROUGH INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION
Inquiry and Habits of Mind

Scientific inquiry provides an excellent means to foster the development of students’
habits of mind. Marzano (1992) describes habits of mind as mental habits individuals
develop to render their thinking. Habits of mind often encompass higher-order thinking
skills, critical and scientific reasoning skills, problem-solving skills, communication and
decision-making skills, and metacognition—being aware of your own thinking. Habits of
mind are also closely associated with the 21st-century learning skills students will need
to develop to become successful when pursuing STEM (science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics) careers in the years ahead. Although examples of habits of mind vary
from author to author, the attributes usually common in science include the following:
•• Commitment •• Integrity
•• Creativity •• Openness
•• Curiosity •• Persistence
•• Diligence •• Reflection
•• Fairness •• Sensitivity
•• Flexibility •• Skepticism
•• Imagination •• Thoughtfulness
•• Innovation •• Wonder
As we journey further into our understanding of inquiry, we will come to see how
inquiry-based classrooms promote critical-thinking skills and habits of mind and
empower students to become independent, lifelong learners. Hester (1994) tells us that
inquiry involves
critical thinking processes such as methods of diagnosis, speculation, and hypothesis

testing. The method of inquiry gives students the opportunity to confront prob-
lems, and generate and test ideas for themselves. The emphasis is on ways of
examining and explaining information (events, facts, situations, behaviors, etc.).
Students, when taught for the purposes embodied in inquiry, are encouraged to
evaluate the usefulness of their beliefs and ideas by applying them to new prob-
lem situations and inferring from them implications for future courses of action.
(pp. 116–117)
Benchmarks (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1993)

suggests
by the end of the 12th grade, students should know why curiosity, honesty, openness,
and skepticism are so highly regarded in science and how they are incorporated
into the way science is carried out; exhibit those traits in their own lives and value
them in others. (p. 287)
Why are habits of mind so important to inquiry? They are important to inquiry
because they communicate a teacher’s values and beliefs about what constitutes good
teaching and learning. In turn, habits of mind manifest our classroom behaviors and
direct the personality of the learning environment. As students engage in scientific
inquiry, they demonstrate these attributes and behaviors in a collective sense as part of
completing an investigation. According to the AAAS (1900):
CONSTRUCTING AN UNDERSTANDING OF INQUIRY
3
It is also important for people to be aware that science is based upon everyday
values even as it questions our understandings of the world and ourselves.
Indeed, science is in many respects the systemic application of some highly
regarded human values. Scientists did not invent any of these values . . . but the
broad field of science does incorporate and emphasize such values and drastically
demonstrates just how important they are for advancing human knowledge and
welfare. Therefore, if science is taught effectively, the results will be to reinforce
such generally desirable human attributes and values—curiosity, openness to new
ideas, and skepticism. (p. 185)
What the National Science Education

Standards Say About Inquiry
In 1996, the National Research Council (NRC) released the National Science Education
Standards (NSES). In regard to the inquiry standards, the NRC states:
Inquiry is a multifaceted activity that involves making observations; posing questions;

examining books and other sources of information to see what is already known
in light of experimental evidence: using tools to gather, analyze, and interpret
data; proposing answers, explanations, and predictions; and communicating the
results. Inquiry requires identification of assumptions, use of critical and logical
thinking, and consideration of alternative explanations. (p. 23)
However, according to the Standards doing inquiry involves more than just utilizing
science process skills in the classroom. The Standards require that high school teachers
plan activities that engage students in combining process skills and critical reasoning
skills to develop an appreciation for and understanding of science. According to the
Standards (NRC, 1996), engaging high school students in inquiry helps to develop
•• an understanding of scientific concepts,

•• an appreciation of “how we know” what we know in science,
•• an understanding of the nature of science,
•• skills necessary to become independent inquirers about the natural world, and
•• the dispositions to use the skills, abilities, and attitudes associated with science.
The Standards also highlight the ability to conduct inquiry and develop an under-
standing about scientific inquiry:
Students in all grade levels and in every domain of science should have the oppor-
tunity to use scientific inquiry and develop the ability to think and act in ways
associated with inquiry, including asking questions, planning and conducting
investigations, using appropriate tools and techniques to gather data, thinking
critically and logically about the relationships between evidence and explana-
tions, constructing and analyzing alternative explanations, and communicating
scientific arguments. (NRC, 1996, p. 105)
The inquiry standards set forth by the National Research Council (1996) are divided
into three separate grade levels or junctures. Each juncture identifies inquiry standards
specific for that grade. These standards help science educators define what students
should know and be able to do. Reading the inquiry standards for grades 9–12 can help
develop an understanding of the abilities necessary to do scientific inquiry.
At the high school level, according to the NRC (2000a), students should be able to
•• identify questions and concepts that guide scientific investigations,

•• design and conduct scientific investigations,
•• use technology and mathematics to improve investigations and communications,
•• formulate and revise scientific explanations and models using logic and evidence,
•• recognize and analyze alternative explanations and models, and
•• communicate and defend a scientific argument. (p. 19)
Although the National Science Education Standards have been replaced by A Framework
for K−12 Science Education (NRC, 2012) and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS;
NRC, 2013), science teachers should still become familiar with the National Science
Education Standards. The Standards can be purchased in softcover, read online, or down-
loaded as a free PDF version from the National Academy Press (www.nap.edu/
bookstore). Readers may also be interested in an excellent accompanying text, Inquiry and
the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning (NRC, 2000a)
that offers stories of high school teachers engaging students in inquiry (see Resource A,
the “Print Resources on Scientific Inquiry and Argumentation” section).
What A Framework for K−12 Science

Education and the Next Generation
Science Standards Say About Inquiry
In 2012, the National Research Council (NRC) published A Framework for K−12 Science
Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. According to the NRC (2012), the
Framework identifies a general description of the science content and skill development
that all U.S. students should be familiar with by the end of grade 12. The Framework also
lays the foundation for the development of the Next Generation Science Standards in 2013.
Like the NSES, the Framework identifies and articulates the core ideas in science
around which standards should be developed in life sciences, physical sciences, earth and
space sciences, and engineering and technology. In addition to the core ideas, cross-
cutting concepts and science practices are identified and sequenced across the K−12 level.
Each of these three dimensions of the Framework inaugurates the vision of the scope and
nature of science education as a crucial aspect in fostering scientifically literate citizens
for the 21st century. And as with the NSES, inquiry, once again, plays a significant role in
the advancement of scientific literacy.
Inquiry and Scientific Practices

In the Framework and the Next Generation Science Standards the term practices is used
to represent the term inquiry. However, the practices identified in the Framework still
strongly reflect certain common qualities to problem-solving and inquiry approaches.
According to the NRC (2012), the practices in the Framework document reflect the work
that scientists and engineers actually engage in as part of their work. The eight essential
practices of science include the following:
5
1. Asking questions
2. Developing and using models
3. Planning and carrying out investigations
4. Analyzing and interpreting data
5. Using mathematics, information and computer technology, and computational
thinking
6. Constructing explanations
7. Engaging in argument from evidence
8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information (p. 42)
Each of the eight essential practices is elaborated in greater depth in the original
document. The Framework, however, makes a stronger commitment to the basis of devel-
oping claims and supporting evidence as a result of an inquiry investigation. In the
Framework, scientific argumentation and reasoning play a central component in learning
science. These two topics will be addressed in greater detail in Chapter 2, “Constructing
an Understanding of Scientific Argumentation.” Readers are strongly encouraged to
become familiar with the Framework and the NGSS and their implications for inquiry-
based teaching and learning. In the years ahead, scientific practices and argumentation
will play an ever increasing role in the United States’ goal of achieving scientific literacy.
The Next Generation Science Standards are poised to advance the next wave of guidelines
to guide students to 21st-century learning skills.
Inquiry as a Three-Legged Stool

From the readings, we see that inquiry has a three-prong meaning. According to Flick and
Lederman (2006),
Inquiry stands for a fundamental principle of how modern science is conducted.

Inquiry refers to a variety of processes and ways of thinking that support the
development of new knowledge in science. In addition to the doing of science,
inquiry also refers to knowledge about the processes scientists use to develop
knowledge that is the nature of science itself. Thus, inquiry is viewed as two dif-
ferent student outcomes, ability to do scientific processes and the knowledge
about the processes. (p. ix)
The third prong of its meaning has to do with teachers using an inquiry approach as
a means to teach students science content and the methods and processes scientists use.
Flick and Lederman (2006) go on to say that “the logic here is that students will best learn
science if they learn using a reasonable facsimile of the processes scientists follow” (p. x).
Thus for effective inquiry instruction, science teachers need to balance both the under-
standings about scientific inquiry and the abilities in doing scientific inquiry.
In many ways, inquiry is like a three-legged stool. Not only does it refer to the doing,
knowing, and teaching aspect, but it also involves the science, art, and spirit of curiosity.
Inquiry can be further explained as the scientific process of active exploration by which
we use critical, logical, and creative thinking skills to raise and engage in questions of
personal interest. Driven by our curiosity and wonder about observed phenomena, per-
forming an inquiry investigation usually involves several elemental aspects:
1. Generating a science-related question or problem to be solved, one that physically,

mentally, and personally engages the student
2. Brainstorming possible solutions to the question or problem
3. Formulating a statement to investigate
4. Designing an action plan and carrying out the procedures of the investigation
5. Gathering and recording data through observation and instrumentation
6. Organizing and analyzing the data for patterns and relationships among the
variables
7. Drawing appropriate and evidence-based conclusions, claims, and explanations
from the data
8. Connecting the explanation to previously held knowledge
9. Communicating the conclusions, claims, and explanations with others through
scientific argumentation
As we communicate and share our explanations, inquiry assists in (a) connecting our

prior understandings to new experiences, (b) modifying and accommodating our previ-
ously held beliefs and conceptual models, (c) providing opportunities for discourse, and
(d) constructing new knowledge. In constructing newly formed knowledge, students
generally are cycled back into the processes and pathways of inquiry with new questions
and discrepancies to investigate.
Finally, learning through inquiry empowers students with the knowledge, skills, and
attitudes to become independent thinkers. In many ways, it is a preparation for lifelong
learning, fostering curiosity and creativity. Teachers can encourage students to use com-
munication, manipulation, and problem-solving skills to increase their awareness and
interest in science, setting them on the path to becoming scientifically literate citizens. For
science teachers, the inquiry approach requires a different mind-set and expectations. At
first, inquiry can be both seductive and intimidating to the novice teacher. As teachers
come to understand the role they play in facilitating an inquiry-based classroom, the
transition from a teacher-centered to a learner-centered classroom becomes promising.
For this reason, rather than just providing a compendium of inquiry activities, this book
principally emphasizes understanding the philosophical ideology and role-changing pro-
cess considered necessary for inquiry instruction.
Seven Segments of Scientific Inquiry

Another approach to looking at the flow of a scientific investigation can be expressed
through the Seven Segments of Scientific Inquiry (Llewellyn, 2011). Here we begin by
dividing an investigation into three parts: the question, the procedure, and the results. In
previous books by the author, this has been referred to as the Invitation to Inquiry Grid.
Later in the book, Chapter 7 will introduce the Inquiry Grid in more detail. For now, let’s
return to the three major areas and consider that these three areas can be further divided
7
into Seven Segments, with each segment having its own set of performances and thinking
skills. The Seven Segments are as follows:
The Question
1. Exploring a Phenomenon
2. Focusing on a Question
The Procedure
3. Planning the Investigation

4. Conducting the Investigation
The Results
5. Analyzing the Data and Evidence

6. Constructing New Knowledge
7. Communicating New Knowledge
Figure 1.1 Seven Segments of Scientific Inquiry
The Question
1. Exploring a Phenomenon
• Observe a phenomenon or discrepant event (or engage in an open-ended exploration).
• Assess your prior knowledge about the phenomenon by asking, “What do I know about what’s
happening?”
• Assess others’ prior knowledge about the phenomenon by asking, “What do others know about
what’s happening?”
2. Focusing on a Question
• Make a list of several questions to investigate from the observations made.
• Choose one (or the first) question to investigate.
• Scrutinize the question by asking, “Is the question investigatable?”
• Modify the question, if necessary.
• Seek initial assumptions and evidence through additional observations of the phenomenon.
• Clarify the question by asking, “Before designing an investigation, do I completely understand the
question?”
• Rewrite the question, if necessary.
• Write the question on a sentence strip and post on the wall (or on the table) where the
investigation is taking place.
The Procedure
3. Planning the Investigation
• Decide what data need to be collected to answer the question.
• Identify the variables and constants needed to investigate the question.
• Design a controlled experiment or investigation to answer the question.
• Identify the materials needed to carry out the investigation.
(Continued)
(Continued)
• Draw an illustration of the materials and set up for the investigation.

• Propose one or more hypotheses to test a tentative explanation or predict an outcome to the
investigation.
• Design a chart or table to organize the data to be collected during the investigation.
• Identify safety rules to follow during the investigation.
4. Conducting the Investigation
• Carry out the investigation.
• Collect appropriate data.
• Record data in the proper column of the chart or table.
• Graph the results, if applicable.
• Redesign and retry the investigation, if necessary.
The Results
5. Analyzing the Data and Evidence
• Interpret and make meaning from the data.
• Determine if the data are biased or flawed in any way.
• Seek patterns and relationships among the variables.
• Draw an initial conclusion based on the data.
• Analyze the data and evidence to support, modify, or refute the previously stated hypothesis or
prediction.
• Make a claim based on the evidence.
6. Constructing New Knowledge
• Form an explanation (or model) from the claim and supporting evidence.
• Relate the explanation (or model) to other existing models.
• Reflect upon and make meaning of your newly acquired knowledge.
• Connect new knowledge to your prior knowledge and the knowledge of others.
7. Communicating New Knowledge
• Choose a means to communicate your explanation (or model) and findings to others (e.g., oral
report, poster, PowerPoint, written report).
• Discuss your results and conclusions with others.
• Use scientific reasoning skills to link your claim and supporting evidence.
• Engage in scientific argumentation, allowing others to critique your investigation and claim and
provide counterclaims to your findings.
• Make modifications to your explanation or model, if needed.
• Consider follow-up questions to investigate.
The purpose of providing the Seven Segments is threefold. First, it provides a sug-
gested sequence of cognitive skills and performances for a scientific inquiry. By becoming
familiar with the Segments, teachers are better able to articulate the concept and process
of a science inquiry. Although the Segments may seem to be a lengthy set of sequential
steps, they should not be interpreted as an embellishment of the scientific method or pre-
scribed rungs on a ladder. The Seven Segments serve as a way to capture the essential
aspects of an inquiry investigation.
Second, the Segments provide a blueprint for designing your own science investiga-
tions. It is expected that at the end of this book you will feel competent in modifying your
present long-standing traditional labs as well as designing your own original inquiries.
In the development of your own inquiries, many, if not all, of the Segments will be repre-
sented in one way or another in your design.
9
Third, the Segments serve as an assessment vehicle for judging how well a particular
lab demonstrates the qualities of an effective inquiry-based science investigation. Whether
you use it as a general guide or a checklist, a good number of the performances and think-
ing skills listed under each segment should be evident in a science investigation. As you
read the case studies in this book, occasionally flip back and review the Seven Segments.
Make a mental note of how each Segment is applied in the example. Also, as you design
your own inquiries later in the book, use the progression of Segments to guide the con-
struction of your own investigations.
The Pretzel Theory of Science Inquiry

Throughout this book we will see that not all science inquiries are alike. Some inquiries
are short and straightforward. Others may be short with several twists and turns.
Similarly, other inquiries can be lengthy yet still straightforward, while still others may
be like a roller coaster—long-lasting with loads of loops and zigzags. Think of the differ-
ent variations of science inquiry as pretzels. There are small, rod-shaped pretzels and
long, rod-shaped pretzels. There are small twisted pretzels and large twisted pretzels.
Well, you get the analogy. The point is—although you may start off your school year by
having students do short, straightforward inquiry investigations—with a little practice
and patience they will soon be performing the entire set of the Seven Segments’ manipu-
lative and thinking skills. And for you, the journey of becoming an inquiry-based teacher
will test the limits of your creativity.
Inquiry as a Human Endeavor

Although the Seven Segments offer a progression for testing assumptions, collecting data,
and forming explanations, the observations made, the claims stated, and evidence pro-
vided through student inquiries are seldom identical. Even for practicing scientists there
is seldom just one correct way to conduct an experiment. Spurred by their inquisitiveness,
high school students’ explanations are largely based on their a priori experiences and
expectations of the assumption being explored. It is possible that two biology students
can conduct the same science inquiry about the local environment yet draw different
inferences, claims, and explanations from the same set of data. In this sense, both sorting
evidence and constructing explanations becomes a personal matter. In the Benchmarks for
Science Literacy, the AAAS (1993) says, “What people expect to observe often affects what
they actually do observe” (p. 12).
Furthermore, the NRC (1996) states,
Science is very much a human endeavor, and the work of science relies on basic
human qualities, such as reasoning, insight, energy, skill, and creativity—as well
as on scientific habits of mind, such as intellectual honesty, tolerance of ambiguity,
skepticism, and openness to new ideas. (p. 170)
As high school teachers guide their classes through science inquiries, it is crucial to
remind students to keep accurate records of their work in the interest of objectivity. Some
students may experience varying difficulties being entirely objective about their work.
They tend to choose information as evidence to support their point of view. To help
thwart sources of bias, the accurate collection of data and information is invaluable in
supporting claims that are backed with evidence, logical arguments, and critical reason-
ing (AAAS, 1993). Throughout the inquiry process, students in grades 9–12 should be
encouraged to exhibit skepticism and act as a “reflective friend” in critiquing each other’s
conjectures and suppositions. Only through the analysis and examination of each other’s
work can students truly appreciate the real work of scientists, the essence of inquiry, and
the evolving nature of science.
Ten Beliefs (and Rebuttals)

About Inquiry-Based Learning
To this point, we have been learning what inquiry is. Now, we want to turn our attention
and address ten conceptions (or misconceptions) high school science teachers, who are
inexperienced with inquiry, often make about this approach to teaching and learning. To
introduce the argument process, a rebuttal follows each belief statement.
Belief 1: I have students do many hands-on labs as part of my science course. To me,
that’s doing inquiry.
Rebuttal: Providing students with an opportunity to do labs, especially those with

hands-on activities, does not necessarily mean they are doing inquiry. Many lab and
textbook activities can be highly structured. These labs usually provide the students
with the question to investigate, what materials to use, and most of all, how to go about
solving the question by listing a sequence of step-by-step procedures of the lab. In
many cases, commercially produced labs even provide a chart or table for the students
to record their observations, measurements, or data. These types of labs are often
referred to as “cookbook” because they provide a systematic procedure and follow a
very linear path to a solution to the question. This is not to say that these kinds of lab
experiences are not important, or that high school science teachers should avoid using
them, but many traditional and structured labs are not true inquiry. Although most
inquiry labs and activities are hands-on, not all hands-on labs and activities are inquiry
oriented.
Belief 2: I am what many would consider a traditional teacher, and my students do pretty
well. My style works for me, especially since there is no research that indicates teaching
through inquiry improves student achievement.
Rebuttal: The National Science Foundation (NSF) funded Inquiry Synthesis Project
synthesized findings from research conducted between 1984 and 2002 to address the
research question, What is the impact of inquiry science instruction on K−12 student
outcomes? Over 130 analyzed studies indicate a clear, positive trend favoring inquiry-
based instructional practices, particularly instruction that emphasizes students to actively
think and draw conclusions from data. According to the project investigators, teaching
strategies that actively engage students in the learning process through scientific
investigations are more likely to increase conceptual understanding than are strategies
that rely on more passive techniques. For the project’s analysis see Minner, Levy, and
Century (2009).
11
Belief 3: I observed a high school science classroom where students were learning
through inquiry and the lesson appeared to be unstructured and open-ended. That’s not
what I think good teaching is all about.
Rebuttal: In some high schools, a good teacher is perceived as one who keeps a classroom
quiet and students consumed in seat time. Although no one will argue that effective
classroom management skills aren’t essential for inquiry learning, an active, student-
centered classroom should not be equated with chaos or unstructured instruction. As with
any lab activity, when students do inquiry-based science we can expect the noise level to
raise somewhat. To some, inquiry may appear on the surface to be unstructured and open-
ended, but as student involvement increases, so does the need for the teacher to manage
classroom movement and communication. When teachers use inquiry-based strategies,
they may find that teaching requires more preparation and anticipation of possible student
questions than traditional labs and teaching approaches do.
Teachers new to inquiry may often feel less in control when students move about the
room, make decisions about their work, and are encouraged to challenge the work of oth-
ers. Although most teachers are actually in control, they perceive otherwise. To establish
inquiry-centered environments, teachers need to accept changes in their role and in the
atmosphere and environment of the classroom. In Chapters 8 and 9, we will see how good
classroom management and questioning skills are a prerequisite for creating a culture of
inquiry. Without good classroom management, any lab, including an inquiry-based lab,
will result in a chaotic situation.
Belief 4: During my class lectures and discussions, I ask students a lot of questions. To
me, that’s one form of inquiry.
Rebuttal: Although valuing questions is a basic commonality in an inquiry-based classroom,

the misconception held by some high school science teachers is that inquiry teaching
requires that the teacher ask a lot of questions. We might recall our own experiences
sitting in science lectures where the teacher fired off question after question. Asking a lot
of questions does not necessarily make an inquiry lesson. If you ever saw the 1973 movie
classic The Paper Chase and watched how Professor Kingsford (played by John Houseman)
used his version of the Socratic method to “drill” and intimidate his first-year law
students, you know that questions can be a double-edged sword. In Chapter 9, we will
see several examples of effective questioning strategies that support inquiry settings. In
inquiry-centered classrooms, teachers provide both expository and exploratory questions
to foster critical thinking and problem solving.
Belief 5: I am under the impression that any science lesson can be taught through
inquiry.
Rebuttal: On the contrary, the fact is that many of the core ideas in science, especially in
the high school grades, are best learned through traditional, didactic methods such as
lectures, presentations, simulations, and textbooks. Some science lessons, because of
safety reasons or availability of materials, lend themselves to more structured, teacher-
centered settings than others. Some labs in chemistry and physics do not provide
flexibility in the procedure section. As teachers, we decide which lessons are best
presented through direct instruction or a teacher-led approach and which ones can be
guided through inquiry.
Belief 6: Inquiry may be appropriate for elementary and middle school students, but I
can’t teach through inquiry when I am expected to get students ready to pass a final exam
at the end of the course. With a high-stakes test looming over my head, I do not have time
for inquiry in my college-prep courses.
Rebuttal: For many high school science teachers, lecture and discussion are the primary
means to dispense knowledge to their students. These teachers see lecturing as the most
effective and efficient way to transmit large amounts of content information to their
students in a relatively short period. Lecturing is the method by which many teachers
learned science when they were in high school. It is also a method by which many
teachers learned science when they were studying to become science teachers. So based
on prior experience, we should not be surprised that so many science classes are lecture
based.
High school science teachers often talk about the time constraints they feel they oper-
ate under (although the Next Generation Science Standards emphasizes less breadth and
more depth). With more and more concepts being added to the curriculum, many science
teachers say they are pressed to cover the curriculum in a school year (remember, cover
means to obscure from view). It is true that inquiry-based learning takes more time; how-
ever, having students pose questions, plan solutions, gather and analyze data, and defend
their findings are higher-level thinking abilities, which are only nurtured over time. There
are no shortcuts to developing students with critical-thinking skills.
I once was told a story about a physics teacher who routinely used the first 5
minutes of class to take attendance and the last 5 minutes of class to provide students an
opportunity to start on their homework. If you were to multiply 10 minutes a day by 180
days per school year, you can see that this particular teacher used 1,800 minutes a year,
or thirty-six 50-minute periods, on noninstructional procedures. In addition, this same
teacher taught a 5-day unit on the latent heat of vaporization that was not part of the
district’s physics curriculum. To find time to do inquiry or to create an inquiry-based cur-
riculum, teachers need to utilize their time effectively and efficiently while centering on
topics and concepts at the core of the curriculum.
Belief 7: You can’t assess inquiry-based learning the way you can science concepts and facts.
Rebuttal: Inquiry-based learning can be assessed like any other concept or topic in science
but teachers need to use alternative methods of evaluation. Popular objective-type multiple-
choice questions do not always adequately assess inquiry-based learning. To assess
students’ academic progress, inquiry-based teachers often rely on supplementing traditional
assessments by using portfolios, written journal entries, extended response questions, self-
evaluations, and rubrics in conjunction with objective-type questions. Examples of each of
these alternative, authentic assessments will be presented in Chapter 9.
Belief 8: I have been teaching high school science for almost 20 years and have seen a
lot of “bandwagons” come and go in my lifetime. Scientific inquiry and argumentation
seem to be the latest thing for science education.
Rebuttal: Actually inquiry and argument-based instruction have an enduring historical

significance in science education. Those who study the history of science education know
that questioning, discovery learning, and inquiry date back to the early days of the Greek
scholar Socrates. The progressive education reformer John Dewey is credited as one of the
13
first American educators to stress the importance of discovery learning and inquiry. In his
early work, Dewey proposed that learning does not start and intelligence is not engaged
until the learner is confronted with a problematic situation. His work at the University of
Chicago paved the way for curriculum reform in science.
Yet despite the overwhelming recommendations from national committees and leading
educational reformers in science education, little was done to implement inquiry into
America’s classroom in the early 1950s. It wasn’t until October, 4, 1957, when Russian
scientists launched a 184-pound satellite with four whisker-like antennae that circled the
Earth every 92 minutes at the speed of 18,000 mph that science curriculum reform efforts
were sparked. Sputnik, as the Russians called it, was a devastating blow to the American
psyche. Although President Eisenhower downplayed the incident, it exposed our technical
weaknesses and wounded our national pride. That event led to the formation of the National
Defense Education Fund in 1958 to support numerous elementary and secondary school
science programs that emphasized inquiry-based instruction. The years from 1958 through
the mid-1960s are what some call the golden age of science curriculum in the United States.
Working with John Dewey at the laboratory school at the University of Chicago
during the 1960s, another reformer, Joseph Schwab, advocated that science curriculum
model how science gets done. Schwab encouraged curriculum reformers to design sci-
ence programs that downplay science as dogma and target the design of investigations,
the analysis of data, and the explanation of evidence through argumentation as an essen-
tial role for students learning science.
Today, on the high school level, premier biology programs such as the Biology
Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) are deeply rooted in instructional methods of learning
that stress the importance of inquiry-based instruction and communicating newly learned
knowledge through discussion and argumentation. In addition, inquiry and argumenta-
tion have been and continue to be the philosophical foundation for many NSF and
National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) sponsored curriculum projects in biology,
earth science, chemistry, and physics. As state, district, and school-level science depart-
ments implement the practices, crosscutting concepts, and the core ideas of Next
Generation Science Standards, inquiry and argument-based teaching and learning will play
a principal role in the formation of K−12 science curricula over the next 20 years. So is
inquiry and argumentation a bandwagon or fad? Absolutely not.
Belief 9: I perceive inquiry as “soft science” and not content related.
Rebuttal: Inquiry, according to the NSF and the National Academy of Science, is one of
the core concepts identified as content related. That elevates inquiry to the same level as
knowing the concepts, principles, laws, and theories about the life, earth, or physical
sciences. According to the AAAS (1990),
Science teaching that attempts solely to impart to students the accumulated

knowledge of a field leads to very little understanding and certainly . . . science
teachers should help students to acquire both scientific knowledge of the world
and scientific habits of mind at the same time. (p. 203)
If students are to gain an appreciation for science and compete in the scientific and
technically oriented society of the new millennium, they will need a curriculum that pro-
motes active learning, critical thinking, and ways to solve tomorrow’s questions. Inquiry-
based science is a proven means to enhance scientific literacy. Additional research has led
to the conclusion that inquiry promotes creativity, critical thinking skills, and positive
attitudes toward science. Although inquiry is no panacea, it is one more strategy teachers
can have in their instructional toolbox to engage students in investigations and satisfy
their curiosity for learning.
Belief 10: I admit inquiry is a good way to teach science. I like giving my students inquiry-
based labs; however, they seem to be best for high-achieving, college-bound science students.
My basic students with learning disabilities have trouble learning through inquiry.
Rebuttal: The recommendations set forth in National Science Education Standards (NRC,
1996) and A Framework for K−12 Science Education (NRC, 2012) apply to all students
regardless of age, cultural or ethnic heritage, gender, physical or academic ability, interest
or aspirations. The national standards stress that the recommendations apply in particular
to those who have historically been underrepresented in the fields of science and
engineering: mainly students of color, females, limited English proficiency students, and
those considered high need. According to the Standards, “given this diversity of student
needs, experiences, and backgrounds, and the goal that all students will achieve a common
set of standards, schools must support high-quality, diverse, and varied opportunities to
learn science” (NRC, 1996, p. 221). The ability to think creatively and critically is not solely
for the high-achieving student. Inquiry-based instruction can and must be done equitably
at all levels. In contrast, some teachers argue that it’s the general level students who seem
to succeed best by learning through inquiry. Many of those same teachers claim that it’s the
high-achieving students who always want to be given the correct answer.
What Science Inquiry

Is—What Science Inquiry Isn’t
Here’s an activity to do. Working with a partner or in a small group, place a poster-sized
sheet of paper on a wall. Using a marker, make a T-chart such as the one shown below.
Label the left-hand column “What Inquiry Is” and the right hand column “What Inquiry
Isn’t.” (For larger groups, you may want to use two separate poster sheets.)
Figure 1.2
T-Chart
What Inquiry Is What Inquiry Isn’t

15
Give each participant a pad of medium-sized adhesive notes. Tell each of the
participants to write a statement on a sticky note that describes what inquiry is or isn’t.
And then place that sticky note on the appropriate column of the T-chart. After 10 minutes,
the poster sheets should be filled with sticky notes. Next, read all the sticky notes aloud,
one at a time. Take off any duplicate statements. Have a discussion about the statements.
Were there any statements you would not agree with? Did the activity expose any miscon-
ceptions about inquiry? Compare the groups’ postings with the statements about inquiry
from the 1996 national standards or the Framework that you read earlier in this chapter.
A Definition of Scientific Inquiry

From the chapters that follow, we will discover scientific inquiry as the process of active
exploration by which we use critical, logical, and creative thinking skills to raise and
engage in questions of personal interest. It is the dynamic collaboration between the indi-
vidual investigator and the question being investigated. Driven by students’ curiosity
and wonder about observed phenomena, inquiry investigations usually involve
•• generating a question or problem to be solved,

•• brainstorming possible solutions to the problem,
•• stating single or multiple hypotheses to test,
•• choosing a course of action and carrying out the procedures of the investigation,
•• gathering and recording the data through observation and instrumentation to draw
appropriate conclusions, and
•• communicating and justifying their claims and evidence through scientific
argumentation.
As high school science students communicate and defend their explanations, inquiry
helps them connect their prior understandings to new experiences, modify and accom-
modate their previously held beliefs and conceptual models, negotiate meaning (Hand,
Norton-Meier, Staker, & Bintz, 2009), and construct new knowledge. In constructing
newly formed knowledge, students generally are cycled back into the processes and path-
ways of inquiry with new questions and discrepancies to investigate.
During the investigation throughout this book, you will read about students exhibit-
ing the five essential features of scientific inquiry:
•• Learners are engaged by scientifically oriented questions.

•• Learners give priority to evidence, which allows them to develop and evaluate
explanations that address scientifically oriented questions.
•• Learners formulate explanations from evidence to address scientifically oriented
questions.
•• Learners evaluate their experiences in the light of alternative explanations, particu-
larly those reflecting scientific understanding.
•• Learners communicate and justify their proposed explanations. (NRC, 2000a, p. 35)
Finally, learning through inquiry and argumentation empowers high school science
students with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to become independent thinkers
and lifelong learners. The process encourages students to use communication, manipula-
tion, and problem-solving skills to increase their awareness of and interest in science and
guide them on their way to becoming scientifically literate citizens.
An inquiry approach requires a different teacher mind-set and classroom culture for
creating a learner-centered environment. In Chapters 4 and 5, you will read more about
becoming an inquiry-based science teacher and how a constructivist mind-set parallels
inquiry. Then in Chapter 6, you will read about the role high school science teachers play
in crafting a culture of classroom inquiry.
Questions for Reflection and Discussion

At the end of a chapter in many professional development books, the author provides
questions for further discussion. Contrary to this and to model good inquiry, the ques-
tions should come from you. So whether you are reading this book alone, collaborating
in a small study group, or participating in a college course or summer institute, write
three questions you presently have about inquiry. The questions may be about the chal-
lenges you face in implementing science inquiry in your school or a reaction to a section
you read in Chapter 1. This exercise is designed to evoke thoughts, opinions, viewpoints,
and most of all, personal feelings about what you are reading. After you write your three
questions, share them with others also reading this book. Set a few moments aside, maybe
over coffee or pizza, to answer each question. Your questions, responses, and reflections
will become beneficial as you progress on your journey.
Three Questions I Have
1.
2.
3.
If you cannot think of any questions to pose or do not have any questions this early
in the book, you can start a journal to record your reflections over the next few months.
Begin by writing your definition of inquiry. Prepare a written narrative, a set of bullets,
or even a concept map to capture your present understandings of science inquiry.
Compare your understandings to the sections you previously read from the national
organizations. Consider writing about how you think inquiry promotes scientific literacy
and the kinds of knowledge, skills, and attitude your students will need to succeed
beyond their high schools years.
If you are familiar with Howard Gardner’s theory on multiple intelligences, you can
write how inquiry-based learning supports a naturalistic intelligence. Or you can think
about how teaching through inquiry (versus teaching about inquiry) supports students in
understanding the nature of science. Think about where your science instruction is pres-
ently and where you want it be a year from now, 3 years from now, 5 years from now.
Regardless of the path you take, it is essential to articulate and document your ideas
about inquiry. As you progress through this book, frequently return to your writing and
revise your understanding. By adding new thoughts to your definition or scrapping ideas
that you now think are outdated, you can make modifications to your evolving notion of
inquiry.
17
The following quote is from Interdisciplinary Inquiry in Teaching and Learning (2000)
by Marian Martinello and Gillian Cook. How does the analogy of ripples on a pond
complement your understanding of inquiry?
The pebble that drops into a pond is like an idea that sparks inquiry. The concen-
tric ripples represent new questions that emerge from the first germ of the idea.
The ever-enlarging pattern of ripples refer to the integrated knowledge that is
acquired as each question is explored, limited only by the force of the inquirer’s
enthusiasm for the search. The greater the interest and the more probing the ques-
tions, the more encompassing the study, the bigger the ideas that it develops, and
the deeper and more meaningful the knowledge the inquirer constructs. (p. 1)
2
Constructing an
Understanding of
Scientific Argumentation
The Influence of Media

Do you recall the old medicine wagons from the TV westerns in the 1950s and 60s? No?
Before your time? Well, in those shows there was often a “professor” or “doctor” selling
liniments and cures to remedy any and all aliments from arthritis to illnesses of every
kind. He would travel from town to town making claims about his wonder drug.
Mesmerized by the professor’s claims and eager to hand over their money for a cure to
their ills, townspeople would draw in close to the horse-drawn wagon and listen to the
oration proclaiming a litany of benefits from just one bottle of the “good stuff.”
Surprisingly, since those days of yesteryear not much has changed. Throughout today’s
media there are plentiful claims about political, economic, social, and scientific issues that
bombard us every day. Gone are the medicine wagons, but just turn on the television or read
the daily newspaper or log onto the Internet, and you can’t avoid someone making a claim
about how to lose weight, how to stop smoking, the benefits of herbal medicines, or the threat
of global warming. And whether it’s about current concerns or settling disputes between two
individuals, it seems there are always two sides to every story. Today’s students are tomor-
row’s citizens who need to unravel “snake oil” claims with a smidgen of skepticism.
Throughout history we have been subject to claims that are expected to be taken on
faith. In 2003, President George W. Bush claimed that Iraq harbored weapons of mass
destruction that threatened our national security. That declaration led to a war that was
precipitated, in part, on faulty evidence. It would be later discovered that the advice and the
evidence the president received led to an erroneous assumption. And never underestimate
the power of the media. Advertising experts hire Hollywood stars and professional athletes
to make testimonials and commercials endorsing a particular product. Recalling the quote
from P. T. Barnum, “There’s a sucker born every minute,” today’s media are unfortunately
full of flimflam artists ready to distort the truth and lure the foolhardy into any profitable
18
CONSTRUCTING AN UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTATION
19
hoax. As a goal of science education, today’s educators need to instill within their students
the ability to discern a deceptive argument from one grounded in substantial evidence.
Tomorrow’s citizens, when faced with an allegation, need not jump to conclusions. Rather,
they should ask, “How reliable is the evidence?” and “Is the evidence compelling?”
Skepticism is the power of doubt. It helps us and our students distinguish science
from pseudoscience. One highly popular TV show, MythBusters, utilizes skepticism to test
myths, folklore, and legends passed down to us. With stories such as the midwestern crop
circles created by aliens circulating (and even being believed), maybe suspicion should be
a 21st-century competency we add to the list of science process skills to be taught. You
can view “The Truth about Cheerios” at http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video?id=7574047
and see how the FDA made a cereal maker adjust its advertising claim about lowering
your cholesterol. Another interesting case to research online involves the lawsuit brought
against Reebok in 2011 by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) charging that the shoe
company’s claim that its EasyTone shoes led to 28% greater strength and tone was false.
In light of the FTC’s evidence contradicting Reebok’s claim, Reebok paid $25 million to
settle the lawsuit.
What Is a Scientific Argument?

As you have been reading, making a claim usually generates a discussion and can even
prompt arguments. But to make a clarification, scientific arguments are not the same as
conventional arguments. Conventional arguments usually are disputes in which one
person debates his or her point of view to win over the other person. Conventional argu-
ments are perceived as confrontational in nature. There is generally no common ground
or win-win approach sought; instead the end results with a winner and a loser, the victor
and the defeated. Conventional arguments can be seen everywhere, including court cases
where a jury is presented with position-driven explanations based on facts and evidence
of the case as interpreted by the prosecution and the defense. It’s the jury’s job to render
an opinion based on the preponderance of the evidence. But occasionally, as we all know,
facts and evidence can be twisted.
Arguments also seem to be commonplace in many school settings. It’s inevitable that
arguments would arise in schools where hundreds of preadolescents, overflowing with
emotions and hormones, convene for up to 7 hours a day. And although teachers don’t
like students to engage in heated arguments in class, a well-orchestrated argument
defending claims and evidence from an observed science phenomenon can foster reason-
ing and teach students how to argue and disagree civilly. As Ross, Fisher, and Frey (2009)
put it, “Children are often good at arguing, but not at argumentation” (p. 28).
Scientific argumentation, on the other hand, is a critical-thinking skill that helps stu-
dents propose, support, critique, refine, justify, and defend their positions about issues. The
process of scientific argumentation is straightforward and a natural element of scientific
inquiry. Although the specifics vary depending on the situation, here is one example of the
relationship between inquiry and argumentation. At first, observations are made and data
gathered from witnessing a particular phenomenon. Next, students analyze the observa-
tions and data by looking for patterns and relationships among the variables studied. The
patterns then lead to making several inferences, assumptions, or generalizations. This leads
to students making additional observations to substantiate their assumptions. From those
assumptions and the data collected, students extract evidence to make a claim. The claim
is then justified by additional supporting evidence. Finally, an explanation is constructed
and communicated linking the claim and the evidence together. If the evidence supports
the claim, a mental or physical model is often constructed to represent an explanation of

the phenomenon. If the evidence refutes the claim, the claim can be contested, withdrawn,
or revised. In many cases, the investigation is repeated for a second or third trial of results
where alternative claims and evidence are considered. Therefore, using argument-based
skills is a spiral process of experimenting, analyzing, validating, and explaining the links
among questions, claims, and supportive evidence. The final phase of argumentation lies
with the investigator sharing the claim with others. The claim is communicated and sup-
ported with the evidence, and a classwide discussion begins. Students are encouraged to
be skeptical of the findings and offer counterclaims. What’s important for the teacher to
moderate in this situation is that students can disagree with the claim presented but not the
person expressing the idea. This focuses the argument on the claim, the evidence, and the
explanation—not on the individual presenting the argument. In the end, as with practicing
scientists, ideas are generated, verified, discussed with colleagues, and frequently modified
throughout the course of argumentation.
Parts of an Argument
For our purpose, an argument has five basic parts: the question, the claim, the evidence,
the explanation, and the rebuttal. The question being studied stems from an observable
phenomenon and guides the direction of the inquiry. The observations may stem from a
discrepant event, an inquiry investigation, activities, or labs. The observations later lead
the investigator to making a concluding statement derived from the data collected.
The claim is an assertion or conclusion that addresses the original question. It is par-
tially based on assumptions and the investigator’s prior knowledge about the event being
studied. The claim attempts to construct a tentative answer or possible solution to the
question being studied and is supported by evidence collected during the investigation.
The evidence is a bit trickier to understand since people can confuse data and evi-
dence. Again for the purpose of this book, data are simply all the observations, informa-
tion, and measurements collected during an investigation. Evidence, however, is a
particular subset of the data that the investigator extracts from the data to support or
refute the legitimacy of the claim (Llewellyn & Rajesh, 2011). Therefore, not all the data
from an investigation become usable evidence to support a claim. For example, think of
a crime scene filled with data and the court case that follows. The prosecuting attorney
uses a portion of the data to propose a claim of guilt for the accused individual, while
the defense lawyer uses a different portion of the same data to propose a claim of inno-
cence for the accused. Hand, Norton-Meier, Staker, and Bintz (2009) suggest that
students may collect some data that will not contribute to making a claim because
it doesn’t directly relate to the question or doesn’t yield a pattern. That portion of
the data that both relates to the question (or produces a new question) and yields
a pattern can be considered evidence. (p. 129)
In thinking of data and evidence in terms of sets and subsets, the relationship looks
something like Figure 2.1.
The fourth part of the argument is the explanation. The explanation summarizes the
assertion and provides an interpretation of the newly acquired knowledge. The explana-
tion is also a statement that provides the scientific reasoning about how the claim and the
evidence are linked. Thus, teachers should be mindful in encouraging students to make
evidence-based explanations. The explanation may also provide a concluding statement
21
Figure 2.1
Evidence
Data
Source: Adapted from Negotiating Science: The Critical Role of Argument in Science Inquiry (p. 130), by B. Hand, L. Norton-
Meier, J. Staker, and J. Bintz, 2009, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Adapted with permission.
about the newly acquired information as it sets the stage for the argument being com-
municated, justified, and debated with others. During the argument, especially in the
explanation phase, there is an interesting quandary—which comes first, the claim or
the evidence? According to Llewellyn and Rajesh (2011), it’s similar to the chicken and the
egg dilemma. In the formation of the argument, the selected evidence is used to generate
the claim. However, in the communication of the argument, the claim is usually stated
first, and then the collaborating evidence that supports the claim comes next. In other
words, during the formation of the claim, students think in terms of parts to whole, while
during the communication of the claim, they think whole to parts.
A second example to illustrate the connection between the claim and the evidence, as
well as the reasoning involved in both, lies with inductive and deductive thinking. When
a student uses evidence to make a claim, he or she thinks inductively. That entails reason-
ing from the specific to the general. In other words, the student uses specific evidence
from the data to draw generalizations in the formulation phase of the claim. On the other
hand, when a student communicates the claim and supports it with compelling evidence,
he or she reasons deductively. That denotes reasoning from the general to the specific. In
this case, the student states a generalized claim based and cited by the evidence collected
that supports the claim.
The fifth part of the argument is the rebuttal. The rebuttal follows the oral or written
burden of proof argument presented by the original investigator. In high school science
classes, the investigator usually presents the claim and evidence along with a scientific
explanation to the other class members for a response. During the rebuttal portion of the
argument, counterclaims are suggested and questions are raised as to the reasoning used
and the validity of the evidence.
Making a Case for Argumentation

The task of partnering scientific inquiry and argumentation simultaneously brews a dis-
tinctive approach to teaching science. As the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) are
rolled out across the nation by individual states starting in 2013, scientific argumentation
will play a prominent role in curriculum reform and shape the way science lessons are
fashioned for the next decade. Unfortunately, because of the ever-increasing reality of
increased curricula demands and high-stakes standardized testing, there seems to be less
instructional time in the school day to present students with every concept that fills a sci-
ence textbook. As a result, students get limited opportunities in science class to express,
explain, and elaborate their points of view. But in spite of these sometimes overwhelming
challenges, curriculum reformers are demanding the end of the “mile wide and an inch
deep” science curricula, while exceptional teachers are realizing ways to be effective and
efficient in their classroom time so they can provide students with opportunities for argu-
mentation. For many, it just boils down to what’s more important in science—teaching
another chemical law or providing students the chance to engage in thoughtful reasoning
and debate. For those teachers who foster scientific argumentation in their classrooms,
you will frequently find their students
•• formulating claims based on evidence,

•• constructing an argument,
•• voicing their privately held conceptions,
•• forming decisions to justify a position taken,
•• improving their abilities to frame an argument,
•• having evidence-based discussions,
•• debriefing and reflecting on another’s point of view,
•• providing counterclaims to another’s position,
•• becoming more proficient in argumentation, and
•• improving their speaking and listening skills.
As you look down the list, are there skills and attributes you think are vital for
scientific literacy in the 21st century? If so, developing and honing your own skills in
teaching, as well as your students’ abilities through argumentation, will likely become a
professional goal for you.
Now it’s time to move on to what the national science standards say about argumen-
tation. As you read through the statements in the next sections, continue to reflect on
what you value as the principal learning skills for the students in your class. Then ask
yourself, “How do these statements support what I value most in teaching and learning?”
This is also the time when I admit my bias. Okay, here’s the disclaimer. I believe
argumentation isn’t important because it’s fostered through the national science stan-
dards; it’s vitally important because it just makes perfect sense in developing scientifi-
cally literate high school-age citizens. Even if the standards did not foster teaching
through inquiry and argumentation as strongly as they do, I would still believe it’s a
critical aspect of learning and appreciating the nature of science. After all, that’s my main
responsibility as a teacher. Not just to teach the core ideas of science but also to tell the
story about how we come to know those core ideas.
Realizing that’s a pretty formidable assertion, do you agree or disagree? Do you have
a rebuttal?
What the National Science Education

Standards Say About Argumentation
Within the last 10 years, research has focused teachers’ attention toward inquiry as a means
to develop students’ reasoning and argumentation skills. According to the national science
standards, the National Research Council (NRC) calls for changing the emphasis of classroom
23
instruction to promote inquiry and argumentation. In its landmark 1996 document, National
Science Education Standards (NSES), the NRC fosters the integration of inquiry and argumen-
tation and further suggests a shift in science teaching that includes the following:
1. Using evidence and strategies for developing or revising an explanation

2. Science as argument and explanation
3. Communicating science explanations
4. Groups of students often analyzing and synthesizing data after defending conclusions
5. Applying the results of experiments to scientific arguments and explanations
6. Public communication of student ideas and work to classmates (p. 113)
The standards go even further to express the importance of having students make
claims using evidence and explanation in the NRC’s (2000a) five features of inquiry. In
that, the standards state that in inquiry the learner
•• engages in a scientifically oriented question,

•• gives priority to evidence in responding to questions,
•• formulates explanations from evidence,
•• connects explanations to scientific knowledge, and
•• communicates and justifies explanations. (p. 25)
These recommendations clearly define the importance of having students engage in

argumentation while articulating their evidence and explanations from scientific inqui-
ries. These recommendations also lay the groundwork for incorporating argumentation
strategies into scientific inquiry. The NSES unambiguously state that inquiry should be
viewed as a process of “explanation and argument” as well as a process of “exploration
and experiment” (NRC, 1996, p. 113).
These recommendations are further elaborated in NRC’s (2006) America’s Lab Report:
Investigations in High School Science, available free online at www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_
id=11311. In the document, the NRC suggests ways high school science teachers can improve
students’ understanding by incorporating argumentation and critical reasoning skills into
the curriculum. Readers are strongly encouraged to download a free PDF copy of the docu-
ment and discuss its significance and application to today’s high school science classrooms.
What the Common Core State

Standards Say About Argumentation
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Initiative for English Language Arts & Literacy
in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects (also known as the Common
Core State Standards) is a national effort to create K−12 standards to ensure that all stu-
dents are college and career ready by the end of grade 12. The project, led by the Council
of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Governors Association, estab-
lishes a vision of what it means to achieve literacy in the 21st century. Although the future
of science education curricula is expected to be largely led by A Framework for K−12 Science
Education and the Next Generation Science Standards, the Common Core State Standards will
nonetheless guide individual states in modifying their present standards and assessments.
Consequently, for those involved in science curriculum development, keeping an eye on
the Common Core State Standards translates to being savvy with prominent standards projects
and their impending impact on high school science classrooms. What’s most important to
know about the Common Core State Standards is the emphasis on formulating claims and
arguments with supporting evidence across all subject areas. Emphasizing reading and
writing skills, the Common Core State Standards identifies the following performances for
high school science students (Council of Chief of State School Officers & National
Governors Association, 2010, pp. 62–66).1
Reading Standards for

Literacy in Science and Technical Subjects
By the end of grade 12, students should be able to do the following:
1. Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of science and technical texts,
attending to important distinctions the author makes and to any gaps or inconsis-
tencies in the account
2. Determine the central ideas or conclusions of a text; summarize complex
concepts, processes, or information presented in a text by paraphrasing them in
simpler but still accurate terms
3. Follow precisely a complex multistep procedure when carrying out experiments,
taking measurements, or performing technical tasks; analyze the specific results
based on explanations in the text
4. Determine the meaning of symbols, key terms, and other domain-specific words
and phrases as they are used in a specific scientific or technical context relevant to
grades 11–12 texts and topics
5. Analyze how the text structures information or ideas into categories or hierar-
chies, demonstrating understanding of the information or ideas
6. Analyze the author’s purpose in providing an explanation, describing a proce-
dure, or discussing an experiment in a text, identifying important issues that
remain unresolved
7. Integrate and evaluate multiple sources of information presented in diverse for-
mats and media (e.g., quantitative data, video, multimedia) in order to address a
question or solve a problem
8. Evaluate the hypotheses, data, analysis, and conclusions in a science or technical
text, verifying the data when possible and corroborating or challenging conclu-
sions with other sources of information
9. Synthesize information from a range of sources (e.g., texts, experiments, simula-
tions) into a coherent understanding of a process, phenomenon, or concept,
resolving conflicting information when possible
10. Read and comprehend science/technical texts independently and proficiently
Writing Standards for

Literacy in Science, and Technical Subjects
By the end of grade 12, students should be able to do the following:
1. Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content
a. Introduce precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establish the significance of the claim(s),
distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and create an organization
that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence
25
b. Develop claim(s) and counterclaims fairly and thoroughly, supplying the most
relevant data and evidence for each while pointing out the strengths and limitations
of both claim(s) and counterclaims in a discipline-appropriate form that anticipates
the audience’s knowledge level, concerns, values, and possible biases
c. Use words, phrases, and clauses as well as varied syntax to link the major sections
of the text, create cohesion, and clarify the relationships between claim(s) and
reasons, between reasons and evidence, and between claim(s) and counterclaims
d. Establish and maintain a formal style and objective tone while attending to the
norms and conventions of the discipline in which they are writing
e. Provide a concluding statement or section that follows from or supports the
argument presented
2. Write informative/explanatory texts, including the narration of historical events,
scientific procedures/experiments, or technical processes
a. Introduce a topic and organize complex ideas, concepts, and information so that
each new element builds on that which precedes it to create a unified whole;
include formatting (e.g., headings), graphics (e.g., figures, tables), and multimedia
when useful to aiding comprehension
b. Develop the topic thoroughly by selecting the most significant and relevant
facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and
examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic
c. Use varied transitions and sentence structures to link the major sections of the
text, create cohesion, and clarify the relationships among complex ideas and
concepts
d. Use precise language, domain-specific vocabulary, and techniques such as metaphor,
simile, and analogy to manage the complexity of the topic; convey a knowledgeable
stance in a style that responds to the discipline and context as well as to the expertise
of likely readers
e. Provide a concluding statement or section that follows from and supports the
information or explanation provided (e.g., articulating implications or the
significance of the topic)
3. Produce clear and coherent writing in which the development, organization, and
style are appropriate to task, purpose, and audience
4. Develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising, editing, rewrit-
ing, or trying a new approach, focusing on addressing what is most significant for
a specific purpose and audience
5. Use technology, including the Internet, to produce, publish, and update individual
or shared writing products in response to ongoing feedback, including new argu-
ments or information
6. Conduct short as well as more sustained research projects to answer a question
(including a self-generated question) or solve a problem; narrow or broaden the
inquiry when appropriate; synthesize multiple sources on the subject, demonstrat-
ing understanding of the subject under investigation
7. Gather relevant information from multiple authoritative print and digital sources,
using advanced searches effectively; assess the strengths and limitations of each
source in terms of the specific task, purpose, and audience; integrate information
into the text selectively to maintain the flow of ideas, avoiding plagiarism and over-
reliance on any one source and following a standard format for citation
8. Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research
9. Write routinely over extended time frames (time for reflection and revision) and
shorter time frames (a single sitting or a day or two) for a range of discipline-
specific tasks, purposes, and audiences
As you look down the extensive list, reflect on how the CCSS reading and writing
standards align and endorse scientific argumentation. Nevertheless, I suggest that there
is a significant difference between the emphasis of the Common Core State Standards com-
pared to the Framework and NGSS. Whereas the Common Core State Standards reading
and writing standards suggest a minds-on approach to forming arguments, the national
science standards advocate a hands-on approach. What is uniquely remarkable is how
both sets of standards complement each other from a cognitive versus a manipulative
point of view. In the case of the literacy standards, the evidence for the argument is usu-
ally generated from print and Internet sources, while the evidence for the science stan-
dards is usually generated primarily from data collected during an investigation. That
said, I’m sure many acknowledge a dualist approach: that the evidence to support a sci-
entific claim can originate from both print and online sources and observations and
measurements from an investigation.
What A Framework for K−12

Science Education and the
Next Generation Science Standards
Say About Argumentation
In July of 2012, the National Research Council made available a document called A
Framework for K−12 Science Education. The Framework is a preliminary version of what
would later develop into the Next Generation Science Standards. The Framework was writ-
ten in consultation with some of the brightest individuals in science education and is
based on the leading research in teaching and learning in science. The Framework sets
a vision for the future of science education and builds around three major dimensions:
(1) scientific and engineering practices, (2) crosscutting concepts that unify science and
engineering fields, and (3) core ideas in the physical sciences, life sciences, earth and
space sciences, and engineering and technology. And like inquiry, argumentation is
one of the most essential aspects in the new standards.
The Framework concerns itself with what students should know and be able to do by
the end of grade 12. It proposes what it means to be a “critical consumer” of information
as it relates to scientific and engineering fields. With more emphasis on depth than breadth,
the Framework is specifically designed to reduce the number of core ideas students are
responsible for learning and to provide more time to promote inquiry and argumentation.
The Framework makes a point of emphasizing practices as they relate to under-
standing the real work of practicing scientists and engineers. Practices, as viewed by the
Framework, place equal or more emphasis on having students analyze and critique
data, appraising the quality of the data, and communicating models of evidence-based
findings and explanations through scientific argumentation than it does on perpetuat-
ing a single and distinct set of procedures for forming hypotheses and designing
experiments. According to the NRC (2012), “the focus here is on important practices,
such as modeling, developing explanations, and engaging in critique and evaluation
(argumentation) that have too often been underemphasized in the context of science
27
education” (p. 3–2). Given that, the Framework identifies eight essential practices to be
integrated into the K−12 science curriculum that have a significant impact on inquiry
and argumentation:
1. Asking questions
2. Developing and using models
3. Planning and carrying out investigations
4. Analyzing and interpreting data
5. Using mathematics, information and computer technology, and computational
thinking
6. Constructing explanations
7. Engaging in argument from evidence
8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information (NRC, 2012, pp. 3–5 & 3–6)
You can see that all the practices outlined in the Framework support the notion of
scientific inquiry. More specifically, Practices 6 and 7 apply directly to our understanding
of how explanation and argument are closely coupled. According to the Framework, the
goals for Practice 6, Constructing explanations, state that students by the end of grade 12
should be able to do the following:
•• Construct their own explanations of phenomena using their knowledge of accepted

scientific theory and linking it to models and evidence
•• Use primary or secondary scientific evidence and models to support or refute an
explanatory account of a phenomenon
•• Offer causal explanations appropriate to their level of scientific knowledge
•• Identify gaps or weaknesses in explanatory accounts (their own or those of others).
(NRC, 2012, p. 69)
The goals for Practice 7, Engaging in argument from evidence, state that students by
the end of grade 12 should be able to do the following:
•• Construct a scientific argument showing how data support a claim

•• Identify possible weaknesses in scientific arguments, appropriate to the students’
level of knowledge, and discuss them using reasoning and evidence
•• Identify flaws in their own arguments and modify and improve them in response
to criticism
•• Recognize that the major features of scientific arguments are claims, data, and rea-
sons and distinguish these elements in examples
•• Explain the nature of the controversy in the development of a given scientific idea,
describe the debate that surrounded its inception, and indicate why one particular
theory succeeded
•• Explain how claims to knowledge are judged by the scientific community today
and articulate the merits and limitations of peer review and the need for indepen-
dent replication of critical investigations
•• Read media reports of science or technology in a critical manner so as to identify
their strengths and weaknesses (NRC, 2012, pp. 72–73)
For more information on how the Framework and the Next Generation Science Standards
show how the learning progression of the practices flow from one grade juncture to the
next, download a free copy of the Framework at www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_

id=13165 or view the Next Generation Science Standards at www.nextgenscience.org.
The National Science Teachers Association publishes a summary guide called the
Reader’s Guide to A Framework for K−12 Science Education (Pratt, 2012). That document can
be downloaded free at www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/9781936959
778&lid=ngs.
Together with forming explanation and justifying and defending arguments, all the
practices from the Framework and the NGSS place a strong emphasis on fostering reason-
ing skills. We will now turn our focus toward how communicating arguments encourages
critical reasoning.
Different Types of Reasoning

There are many categories of reasoning patterns recognized in mathematics and science.
Several of these include Jean Piaget’s concrete and formal reasoning skills such as conserva-
tion reasoning, serration-serial ordering, proportional reasoning, and correlational reason-
ing. Others contrast inductive and deductive reasoning. Since classroom teachers are not
expected to be experts in identifying reasoning patterns, this chapter does not address those
capacities—that discussion is left to those who study specific reasoning concepts. This sec-
tion, however, addresses reasoning as the link between claims and evidence and encour-
ages scientific reasoning skills as an aspect of science inquiries as shown in Figure 2.2.
Figure 2.2
Observations Claims Evidence
Reasoning
Flaws in Scientific Reasoning

Despite our best efforts in fostering critical-thinking skills, students sometimes exhibit
flaws in their logic, reasoning, and arguments. When an individual’s argument is faulty,
usually those flaws can be (a) an indication of inexperience in using reasoning skills,
(b) misconceptions in previously held naive notions about the topic being explored, or
(c) backing a claim with another claim. Since research tells us that each student brings to
school preconceptions and varying degrees of reasoning skills and abilities to justify his or
her theories about how the natural world works, each individual has a unique and distinct
cognitive framework that filters reasoning abilities. For that purpose it become necessary
for teachers to provide sufficient “think-time” for a student as he or she states an explana-
tion. According to Michaels, Shouse, and Schweingruber (2008),
In order to process, make sense of, and learn from their ideas, observations, and
experiences, students must talk about them. Talk, in general, is an important and
integral part of learning, and students should have regular opportunities to talk
through their ideas, collectively, in all subjects. (p. 88)
29
In other words, students need time to fully communicate their understanding without
interruptions from the teacher or from other students. In today’s time-constrained curri-
cula, this is often a luxury many teachers say they can’t afford. However, if you truly
believe that promoting students to reason like scientists is a primary goal for your instruc-
tional program, you will need to make the time to integrate critical-thinking skills and
infuse the assessment of previously held conceptions throughout your science program.
Scaffolding Argumentation
in the Classroom
Students too often experience their science classes as an assemblage of facts and
information in a manner that’s the antithesis of the essence of scientific inquiry and argu-
mentation. Correspondingly, Sampson and Grooms (2009) reaffirm that “argumentation
is designed to help students learn to view conjectures, explanations, and other claims
with initial skepticism and to help students develop more rigorous standards for assess-
ing the merits of an idea” (p. 66).
Scientific reasoning is the logic behind scientific inquiry. Fostering scientific
argumentation is challenging at times since students struggle with the task of proposing,
supporting, critiquing, refining, justifying, and defending a position. Active learning pro-
vokes reasoning, and reasoning drives learning (Lawson, 2010). According to Lawson
(2010), if you want your students to develop knowledge, “your instruction needs to allow
students to encounter puzzling observations and then attempt to explain them through
cycles of ‘if-then-therefore’ reasoning. Your instruction then needs to provoke students to
reflect on the learning process . . . to engage in scientific inquiry, and then think about what
they have done” (p. 73). To accomplish this goal, teachers can use a three-level progression
in scaffolding students toward argumentation. The three levels involve the following:
Level 1: Making inferences from observations

Level 2: Testing another person’s claim
Level 3: Making your own claim from evidence
At level 1, argumentation is introduced by having students make inferences from an

observable event or phenomenon. Several illustrations of simple observable events that
utilize the scientific reasoning process include a mystery box (Llewellyn, 2007), track sto-
ries (NRC, 1998), and the “magic glue” demonstration (Llewellyn, 2009). The black box is
simply an empty shoe box with two square wooden blocks glued to the bottom sides in
the box (see Figure 2.3). The teacher places a marble in the box and seals the top lid onto
the lower part of the box with packing tape. The teacher then tells the student that the box
contains two blocks glued to the bottom and a marble. Using the senses of hearing and
touch, the student picks up the mystery box, shakes it, and rolls the marble inside the box
to determine the location of the two wooden blocks. Next, the student draws an illustra-
tion or model to infer the location of the blocks. Using the evidence collected through his
or her senses, the student then explains the model and justifies the location of the blocks
to others.
As an alternative to the mystery box, Lab-Aids has “A Better Black Box,” a kit contain-
ing 12 black-coated petri dishes with dividers inside. Each petri dish contains a small steel
ball, and, as with the shoebox, students tilt the sealed dish from side to side to infer where
and how the dividers are located. See www.lab-aids.com for more information.
Figure 2.3
The mystery box activity can be followed up with a discussion on how paleontolo-
gists study fossils of ancient plants and animals to determine what life was like tens and
hundreds of millions of years ago. By studying artifacts of bones and imprints, scientists
make claims based upon evidence from plant and animal remains. New discoveries and
explanations are then shared with colleagues and published in scientific journals for
further debate and discussion.
A second example is an activity many teachers may already be familiar with. In this
activity, students are shown a set of tracks, possibly made by two animals (see NRC, 1998,
Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science, Chapter 6, Activity 5, “Proposing
Explanations for Fossil Footprints”). At each of the three frames, students make observations
to draw inferences about how the tracks were made and what kind of animals may have
made the tracks. At the end of the third frame, each student uses the observations to tell a
story and explain as to how the tracks were made, what animals made them, and how the
animals may have interacted (while some students may contend that the tracks were made
at different times and the two animals never interacted). What is unique about this activity
is how students can form diverse stories and claims based on the same set of observations.
A third example is the magic glue demonstration (Llewellyn, 2009). For this activity
the teacher needs a glass bottle with a long slender neck (a quart-size beer bottle works
well), a small rubber stopper (small enough to fit through the opening of the bottle), a
piece of rope about 16 inches long, a sheet of aluminum foil, a small clear glass bottle with
a screw top and a label reading “Magic Glue,” and one handout of the bottle for each
student (see Resource B). In preparation for the demonstration, place the rubber stopper
inside the bottle. Next wrap the outside of the bottle with a sheet of aluminum foil so the
bottle is completely covered except for the opening of the bottle (see Figure 2.4).
The teacher then asks for a student volunteer to come forward. The volunteer is told to
cup his or her hands together. The teacher then unscrews the top of the Magic Glue bottle
31
Figure 2.4
and pours the invisible glue into the volunteer’s cupped hands. Replacing the cap and
placing the Magic Glue bottle aside, the teacher holds up the rope for all the students to
see. The teacher dips one end of the rope into the volunteer’s cupped hands—as if to get
Magic Glue on the end of the rope. The teacher then says, “I’ll now dip the end of the rope
into the bottle.” As the teacher swirls the rope inside the bottle and unobtrusively inverts
the bottle, the rubber stopper moves into the neck of the bottle. The teacher then gives a
gentle tug on the rope and turns the bottle upright, releasing the bottle and allowing it to
hang from the rope. With the demonstration complete, the teacher now asks each student
to draw a model on his or her handout that illustrates what’s going on inside the bottle.
You will notice that students will draw different inferences and models from the same
observations. After a few minutes, select three or four students to come up to the front of
the class and explain their models by justifying and defending their explanations. If the
models are drastically different, the teacher may choose to have the rest of the class vote
for the model that’s best supported by the evidence.
In all three examples, the inference or conclusion is like a claim—with the claim being
explained using an illustrated model. Here, all the student inferences and models were
based on observations and supportive evidence. The teacher can now convey how an
inference is like a claim. Just as inferences are based on observations, claims are based on
supporting evidence. By using simple observation-inference activities, students can be
introduced to the idea that a scientific argument involves articulating, justifying, and
defending claims and models from the evidence collected during a scientific investigation.
At level 2, scaffolding toward argumentation involves testing another person’s claim.
In this case, students are asked to test a claim made by someone else. The claim may be
to design an investigation to test whether “Double Stuf Oreos” really do contain twice the
amount of cream filling as regular Oreos (Plankis, Vowell, & Ramsey, 2011) or to design
an investigation involving paper towels testing to determine whether Bounty is really the
“quicker picker upper.” At this level, students collect evidence to support or refute a pre-
viously made claim. At a level 2 task, students formulate a question to be investigated,
design the investigation, identify and manipulate variables, carry out the investigation,
collect and organize the data, analyze the data, and finally determine the validity of the
original claim and substantiate their reasoning with verifiable evidence.
In the case study that follows, one high school science teacher, Joanne Niemi, uses a
level 2 activity to have a 10th-grade biology class of mixed-ability students test a claim
made by the HatchFast Company. This activity is taken from the Science Take-Out kit,
Experimenting: Factors that Affect Sponge Egg Hatching (see www.sciencetakeout.com).
Let’s see how Joanne familiarized her students as to how to argue scientifically.
The Case of the Sponge Eggs

Mrs. Niemi teaches science in a midsized urban high school. Her third-period class is
made up of 17 regular education students and students with special needs. In the first
month of school, Mrs. Niemi emphasizes how students use science in everyday life. To
reinforce that notion, she decides to introduce the class to scientific argumentation. She tells
the students that being good detectives and analyzing claims is an important lifelong skill.
In Part 1 of “Sponge Egg Hatching,” students conduct a controlled experiment to
determine the effect of water temperature on the hatching rate of sponge eggs (small
sponges enclosed in gelatin capsules). Afterward in Part 2, students design and conduct
their own controlled experiment to test an advertised claim from the HatchFast Company
stating that using “HatchFast” speeds up sponge egg hatching.
In Part 1 of the kit, students are guided through an inquiry investigation where they
time the rate of egg hatching in cool, warm, and hot temperature water. Students then
graph the data from their investigation and report on the relationship between water
temperature and the time required for the sponge to hatch.
Before introducing Part 2 of the lab, Mrs. Niemi presents the class with an advertise-
ment she cut out from a fashion magazine. The advertisement states that for only $49.99
you can lose weight through hypnosis. The advertisement claims that regardless of your
previous experience in losing weight, you are 100% guaranteed that this plan will work.
Students examine the advertisement and read testimonials saying people have lost up to
99 pounds on the program in as little as 8 months. However, one student notices the fine
print stating “individual results may vary.” Mrs. Niemi then leads the discussion toward
whether students believe that the claim is warranted and prompts students to determine
if evidence exists to support the program’s claim.
To broaden the discussion, Mrs. Niemi holds up two magazines, Consumer Reports and
an entertainment tabloid, and poses the question, “What evidence is provided to support
the claims from these magazines?” She then suggests that while Consumer Reports is based
on independent testing and reliable consumer information, the tabloid uses sensational-
ist, over-the-top, exaggerated headlines to bamboozle gullible readers into paying for
33
bombshell stories about Hollywood stars and famous celebrities. Nevertheless, the suc-
cess of the slew of magazines that line supermarket checkout lanes can’t be refuted. Over
a million readers each week say, “Enquiring minds want to know!”
This preliminary information scaffolds students into Part 2 of the sponge egg lab. In Part 2,
students design a controlled investigation to test the HatchFast Company’s claim that add-
ing a spoonful of HatchFast, the miracle hatching chemical, to 35º C water decreases the
time needed for sponge eggs to hatch. By testing the claim, students identify the indepen-
dent and dependent variables of the experiment and determine if a control group is needed.
In small groups, they write the procedure for the investigation and decide what data to
collect. Unbeknownst to the students, HatchFast is essentially red-colored sugar granules
that have no effect on the hatching rate. After carrying out the investigation, students even-
tually acquire sufficient evidence to refute the company’s claim and produce a 5-minute
video that presents evidence that contradicts the company’s assertion.
The level 2 activities prepare students to now engage in full level 3 argumentation where
they raise their own investigative questions; design procedures; identify variables; collect,
organize, and analyze data; use evidence to make a claim; form an explanation; and finally
communicate, justify, and defend their reasoning and explanation to others in the class.
At level 3, Mrs. Niemi provides students with Q-C-E-E sheets to organize their oral pre-
sentations. The Q-C-E-E sheets provide space for students to write the question being inves-
tigated, the claim being made, the evidence that supports the claim, and an explanation that
summarizes the reasoning that links the claim and the evidence together as well as stating
newly learned core ideas derived from the investigation (see Figure 2.7). In future investiga-
tions, Mrs. Niemi further scaffolds students into more elaborate explanations by providing
suggested print and online readings for background information and helps support the
formation of their arguments in a section called “What Others Know About the Topic” (see
Figure 2.8). At the most advanced point of level 3, students will research their own articles
and state what is already known about the question being investigated. This information
again serves as a tool for writing an explanation about the newly acquired knowledge and
provide the reasoning that links the claim and evidence together in the argument.
Verbal Prompts
You just read that reasoning skills can be polished through something as simple as a
Q-C-E-E sheet. Although the sheet serves as an initial guideline, to make clear and concise
explanations students need further help in articulating their logic. This help can come in
the form of prompts. According to Llewellyn and Rajesh (2011), teachers can elicit and
promote reasoning skills by posing the following prompts:2
“What assumptions can you make about the observations?”

“What’s the basis for your prediction?”
“What evidence did you collect that supports your claim, your idea, or your
hypothesis?”
“Why do you think that’s so?”
“What do you mean by . . . ?”
“Does the evidence support or refute your claim?”
“Are the data biased? Are the data reliable?”
“How would you interpret the data and evidence?”
Figure 2.5
Figure 2.6
35
Figure 2.7
Name____________________________________________
Question
Claim Evidence
Explanation
Figure 2.8
Name_______________________________________
The Question
My Claim The Evidence
What Others Know About the Topic
My Explanation
37
“What is the relationship between the independent and the dependent variable?”
“What do the data say or imply?”
“What conclusion can you draw from the evidence?”
“How is one variable dependent upon another?”
“What explanation can you propose from the evidence collected?”
“How do the results support what you already knew about the phenomenon?”
“Can you construct a model to support your explanation?”
“Were your original assumptions about the question correct?”
“How will you defend your findings?”
As you become more accustomed to classroom argumentation, these verbal prompts

will become a natural part of your questioning skills.
The Classroom as a Courtroom

Although high school debate clubs may be a thing of the past, turning your classroom into
a courtroom can be an easy way to apply the skills of argumentation in science. By prepar-
ing courtroom trials on various historical and present-day opposing beliefs, teachers afford
students opportunities to become more proficient in argumentation while providing a shel-
tered environment in which to disagree and improving their speaking and listening skills.
With “Courtroom in the Classroom,” students take on the role of lawyers defending a par-
ticular viewpoint of a science controversy by framing an argument and preparing evidence-
based summaries or as jurists rendering a verdict based upon the preponderance of the
evidence presented. Scientific-related topics that can be argued include the following:
•• Ptolemy’s geocentric vs. Copernicus’ heliocentric universe

•• Frequent use of cell phones leads to brain cancer
•• Light is a particle vs. light is a wave
•• How did the giraffe get its long neck? By acquired or inherited characteristics?
•• Pluto is a planet vs. not a planet
•• The table you are working on is mostly empty space
•• A meteorite hitting the Earth caused the extinction of dinosaurs
•• The Earth getting warmer
•• Vaccines cause autism
Through the debate of scientific issues, students learn to distinguish between legal
and scientific arguments. That is, conventional arguments usually have a winner and a
loser, whereas scientific arguments usually result in a new and improved revised model
or explanation.
Painting a Picture of
What Real Scientists Do
By now you can appreciate how seamlessly woven inquiry and argumentation can be.
Best of all, by integrating inquiry and argumentation, teachers present a more realistic
picture of the work that scientists and engineers really do. This is a departure from the
traditional scientific method that depicts an incomplete image of science. With the scien-
tific method, the experiment focuses on students testing and proving a stated hypothesis.
In the traditional scientific method, the hypothesis is a proposed explanation to a ques-
tion. It serves as a predictor for an expected outcome. The problem with a hypothesis is
that students have such a personal investment in the statement that they feel the need to
find data that proves their hypothesis to be correct. As a result, they often choose to select
data or alter data to prove their hypothesis is accurate. This results in having theory-laden
data. In argumentation, there may be no hypothesis to test—just evidence and follow-up
claims to make. Some teachers prefer students to have no prior expectations, meaning not
having a hypothesis or multiple hypotheses, so students are not wedded to one particular
expected outcome. As a follow-up activity, choose one side of this hypothesis/no hypothesis/
multiple hypotheses debate and constructively argue your position with a colleague.
Determine when an inquiry investigation should have a hypothesis, or no hypothesis, or
multiple hypotheses. Provide specific examples in biology, environmental science, earth/
space science, chemistry, and physics.
Finally, in summarizing the inquiry/argumentation process, we can divide the
practices into three distinct steps:
Before the Lab
Make an observation of an event, an unusual phenomenon, or a discrepancy

Pose a question related to the observations
Use your prior knowledge to make several assumptions about the observations
During the Lab
Design and implement an investigation to answer the question

Design a data table to organize the data collected
Collect and record the data from the investigation
After the Lab
Analyze the relationship among the variables

Look for patterns and relationships among the variables
Make a claim based on the data collected
Cite evidence to support or refute the claim
Form an explanation with reasoning that links the claim and the evidence together
Communicate, justify, and defend the question, claim, evidence, and explanation to others
Transitioning to this approach to teaching science will take time and practice. The
transformation of teachers’ values through scientific argumentation involves shedding
“old skins” and altering one’s understanding of the dimensions of scientific literacy.
Moreover, it reconstructs our attitudes and beliefs about how students learn the true
meaning of inquiry and the nature of science.
39

As you did in Chapter 1, write three questions you have about implementing scientific
argumentation in your classroom. Consider the rewards and challenges in such an under-
taking. Share your opinions with others reading this book.
Three Questions I Have
1.
2.
3.
If you cannot think of any questions at this time, discuss the significance of the
following statement by Carl Sagan (1996): “Both skepticism and wonder are skills that
need honing and practice. Their harmonious marriage within the mind of every
schoolchild ought to be a principal goal of public education” (p. 306). Discuss its
implications for teachers implementing argumentation in their high school science
classrooms. Practice using the following templates to agree, disagree, or both agree
and disagree.
•• I agree with ______________ (the author) because I believe ______________.

•• I wholeheartedly endorse what ______________ (the author) says because
______________.
•• I challenge the viewpoint of the author by insisting that ______________.
•• I feel ______________ (the author) is mistaken by saying ______________, when in
fact, ______________.
•• On one hand, I agree with ______________ (the author) that ______________. But on
the other hand, I still maintain that ______________.
•• My opinion on the statement is mixed. I support the idea that ______________, but
I question whether ______________.
•• I used to think that ______________. Now I acknowledge that ______________
because ______________ (reason 1) and ______________ (reason 2).
As an alternative to responding to the statement above, read the following articles

on scientific argumentation published in The Science Teacher and The American Biology
Teacher. Use the templates above to agree, disagree, or both agree and disagree with the
authors. Discuss the articles with a colleague and apply the authors’ comments to your
own classroom.
“Argument-Driven Inquiry to Promote the Understanding of the Important Concepts

and Practices in Biology,” by Victor Sampson and Leeanne Gleim, The American
Biology Teacher, October 2009, pages 465–472.
“Argument-Driven Inquiry,” by Victor Sampson, Jonathon Grooms, and Joi Walker,
The Science Teacher, November 2009, pages 42–47.
“An Argument for Arguments in Science Classes,” by Jonathan Osborne, Phi Delta
Kappan, December 2009/January 2010, pages 62–65.
“Generate an Argument: An Instructional Model,” by Victor Sampson and Jonathon
Grooms, The Science Teacher, Summer 2010, pages 32–37.
Or consider this activity:

A “Doubting Thomas” is someone who refuses to believe something without direct
evidence. In today’s world we call this person a skeptic. According to Wikipedia, the term
Doubting Thomas comes from the Biblical account (John 20: 24–29) of Thomas the Apostle,
a disciple of Jesus who doubted Jesus’ resurrection and demanded to feel Jesus’ wounds
before being convinced. In the fields of science, as well as science classes, there are many
Doubting Thomases. What are the advantages and disadvantages of having Doubting
Thomases or skeptics in your science classes? Do more Doubting Thomases come from
Missouri, the “Show Me” state, than from other states? What is a skeptic? Why do skep-
tics scoff at claims without compelling, empirical evidence? View the Web site www
.skeptic.com for an interesting distinction between a “skeptic” and a “cynic” and have a
rousing discussion.
Or consider the following questions:
1. When presenting a claim, how often do your students provide anecdotal and per-
sonal opinions as circumstantial evidence for their claim? As a teacher how can you
help students use persuasion to “sell” an argument? What role do illustrations,
testimonials, humor, and personal experience play in presenting a point of view?
2. Like the traveling medicine wagons and “snake oil” salesmen you read about at the
beginning of the chapter, think of the last time you or others were bamboozled or
hoodwinked into believing a charlatan’s claim that later proved to be false. How
did it make you feel?
3. We live in a world surrounded by superstitions, symbols, and folklore. Ask your
students these questions: How many believe in Ouija boards? How many believe
in the Farmer’s Almanac? In fortune cookies? In horoscopes? How many believe
that ladybugs bring good luck? How many have ever had a Native American
dream catcher? Or have a rabbit’s foot for good luck? How many have tossed a coin
into a fountain and made a wish? How many have made a wish before blowing out
the candles on their birthday cake? How many have a lucky number? How many
have triskaidekaphobia (a fear of the number 13)? Are there instances you can think
of where students were pertinacious in their belief of someone’s claim, despite the
overwhelming evidence showing the claim to be incorrect?
Notes
1. Common Core State Standards are © Copyright 2010 National Governors Association
Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. All rights reserved.
2. From “Fostering Argumentation Skills: Doing What Real Scientists Really Do,” by
D. Llewellyn and H. Rajesh, 2011, Science Scope, 35(1), pp. 22–28. Reprinted with permission.
3
Learning About Inquiry
and Argumentation
Through Case Studies
A Case Study Approach

A case study is a description and analysis of the interaction among members in a particular
situation. Cases are ideal for studying scientific inquiry because they present an opportu-
nity for active engagement in a situation (Norton & Lester, 1998). Case studies are espe-
cially useful in science education because they emphasize that learning is founded in
experience and that knowledge is constructed through problem solving (Dewey, 1938). By
investigating a case study, you are actually modeling the engagement of inquiry and
problem solving. Because the reader must become intellectually, emotionally, and socially
involved with the incidents (Kowalski, Weaver, & Henson, 1990), the case studies in this
book are based on real high school science teachers doing real investigations. In some
cases, teacher and school names have been changed to ensure confidentiality.
Case studies originally were used in the medical, psychology, and legal professions.
Although case studies have been used at the Harvard Business School for more than 75
years, some historical records trace the origin of case studies back to ancient Greece (Norton
& Lester, 1998). More recently, they have been and are being used in education, business,
marketing, and human service fields as practical means to present and examine people inter-
acting in particular situations. The purpose of the case studies in this book is to think about
teachers in action and to analyze the interactions and behaviors demonstrated in the lesson.
The cases we will study convey the planning, interaction, and dialogue that can be
found in a typical, inquiry-based high school science lesson. Some case studies described
in this book are short-term inquiries lasting one or more classroom periods. Others rep-
resent extended inquiries lasting a month or more. As you work through a case, there are
no right or wrong answers; instead of searching for “the answer,” focus on developing the
ability to identify underlying causal issues and phenomena found in each case study.
41
It is not advised to analyze a case study alone. Share your reflections with another
teacher interested in inquiry or work in collegial support groups. E-mail, blogs, and dis-
cussion boards also can be viable means for a number of people to share their thoughts
or reactions.
Each case study will have a similar format. The reader will be introduced to the class-
room setting, the teacher and students, the subject area or grade level, and a correlation
to the national science standards. All cases will be followed by questions and prompts for
reflection, discussion, and analysis. In some cases, additional readings, resources, and
Web sites are recommended for further study.
For more information on using case studies, see the National Center for Case Study
Teaching in Science at http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/.
A Case Study: Inquiring About Isopods

Now that we have enhanced our understanding of inquiry, let’s study a class of 9th-grade
biology students exploring the characteristics and behaviors of isopods. (Although the
case study represents a real situation, the names of the teacher and students in this case
are fictitious.) In this unit, the teacher, Mrs. Davis, is in her 7th year at Fairfield High
School. Her 22 students will be exploring pillbugs (Armadillidium vulgare) by recording
observations, raising questions to investigate, testing their ideas, collecting evidence, and
communicating their discoveries about animal behavior.
The pillbug lesson also aligns with A Framework for K−12 Science Education (NRC,
2012) for grades 9–12.
Practices
•• Asking questions
•• Planning and carrying out investigations
•• Analyzing and interpreting data
•• Constructing explanations
•• Engaging in argument from evidence
Crosscutting Concepts
•• Structure and function
Core Ideas
•• LS1.A: Multicellular organisms have a hierarchical structural organization
For practicality, consider the many advantages to using isopods versus other animals
such as worms, snails, or slugs. Isopods are safe and easy for students to handle. Isopods
also are ideal in states where education law discourages or prohibits the use of vertebrates
for experimentation. In addition, they do not harbor diseases that can be transmitted to
humans, are practically odorless, and are easy to raise and prepare for study. Moreover,
isopods, unlike fruit flies, cannot fly away and move quite slowly, making them ideal for
students to observe and illustrate. Isopods also will not harm other plants and animals in
the classroom. Best of all, for some teachers—they don’t bite!
LEARNING ABOUT INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION THROUGH CASE STUDIES
43
To introduce the lesson, Mrs. Davis assesses the students’ prior knowledge and pre-
conceptions about isopods. She poses the question, “What do you know about pillbugs?
Have you ever turned over a rock or rotting log and seen these little roly-poly animals?”
She has students individually record their experiences in their science journals and later
has them “pair and share” what they wrote with a partner.
After several minutes of paired discussion, Mrs. Davis calls on a few students to share
their responses with the entire class by stating one or more comments from their table or
diagram. She places their responses on the board and organizes their thoughts into a
concept map. Mrs. Davis continues by explaining that isopods are like little ecological
“janitors” because they eat decaying leaves.
In the next phase of the lesson, students have an opportunity to observe and explore
pillbugs in a petri dish. Before passing out the pillbugs, Mrs. Davis reminds students to
wash their hands before and after handling any animal specimens. Working in groups of
two, students now observe and record pillbug characteristics and behavior. At this point,
Mrs. Davis also instructs the class to record questions they would like to investigate. She
tells them, “As you explore your pillbugs, record your observations and questions in your
science journal. We will later use this information to design and conduct our pillbug
behavior investigations.” She encourages them to use a two-column format for recording
their observations and questions, as in Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1 Two-Column Chart
Observations Questions
Mrs. Davis now hands out a sheet of tasks and questions to initiate further explorations.
•• Observe your pillbugs at first with your naked eye. Then view the pillbugs using a
magnifying lens. Later examine the pillbugs under a dissecting microscope using
4X and 10X magnification. What do you observe?
•• Draw an illustration of a pillbug from a top view (dorsal side) and bottom view
(ventral side).
•• What is the length of a pillbug in millimeters?
•• How many body sections does a pillbug have?
•• How many pairs of legs does a pillbug have?
•• Do all pillbugs have the same number of legs?

•• How many antennae does the pillbug have?
•• How many eyes does the pillbug have?
•• Do the eyes appear to be simple or compound eyes?
•• Describe the pillbug’s outer plates or outside skeleton (exoskeleton).
•• How many segments does the pillbug have?
•• Do all pillbugs have the same number of segments?
•• What happens when you place a pillbug on its back?
•• What happens when you gently touch the pillbug? Does it roll up? If so, how long
does it stay in the rolled-up position?
Following the pillbug exploration, Mrs. Davis concludes the lesson by passing out an
Isopod Fact Sheet to the students. She tells the students to read the fact sheet for home-
work and that tomorrow’s class will start with a discussion of the anatomy, physiology,
and habitat features of pillbugs.
Isopod Fact Sheet
•• Pillbugs are not insects or bugs. They belong to the order Isopoda, a group of crus-
taceans similar to lobsters, shrimp, crayfish, and crabs.
•• There are more than 4,000 species of isopods.
•• Pillbugs have three body parts: a head, a thorax, and an abdomen.
•• Most isopods live in marine or freshwater habitats. A few species live on land.
•• Pillbugs breathe through gill-like structures.
•• Pillbugs have one pair of compound eyes and a pair of antenna.
•• Terrestrial pillbugs are usually found under rocks or rotting logs and decaying
leaves.
•• Pillbugs feed on decaying leaves and other organic matter.
•• Pillbugs are usually 5–15 mm in length.
•• Pillbugs are wingless and have seven pairs of identical legs. Isopod means “alike legs.”
•• Pillbugs are gray to light brown in color.
•• Pillbugs are invertebrates. Adult pillbugs are covered with an exoskeleton of
armor-like plates that occasionally molt or shed (producing a new one) every 28
days to accommodate growth.
•• Pillbugs, Armadillidium vulgare, are sometimes called “roly-polies” and resemble
miniature armadillos. They use the roll-up behavior as a defense mechanism and
in times of drought.
•• Pillbugs differ slightly from sowbugs, Porcellio laevis. As shown in Figure 3.2, a
sowbug has two pointed tail-like structures near its posterior and cannot roll into a
ball.
•• Pillbugs most commonly mate in the spring. Female pillbugs can produce up to 200
eggs that are carried in a brood-like pouch or sac under the thorax. Young pillbugs
resemble adults at birth.
•• Birds and amphibians are pillbugs’ natural predators.
•• Most pillbugs live 2–3 years.
The next day, Mrs. Davis starts the lesson by reviewing the Isopod Fact Sheet. Students
then have an opportunity to share their observations and questions from their two-column
45
Figure 3.2 Isopods
Sowbug Pillbug
Porcellio laevis Armadillidium vulgare
table during a class discussion. She then instructs the students to review their observations
and questions and narrow down their recordings to select one important question to
investigate. Students are given time to brainstorm their ideas, both individually and in
groups. Then, one at a time, each student writes his or her one question on the board. As
the students share and discuss their questions, Mrs. Davis assists in editing and reword-
ing questions as necessary. She reminds students to write investigative questions as
cause-and-effect questions and to describe how one factor or variable changing will affect
another factor or variable. Students’ questions include the following:
•• Do pillbugs have a food or leaf preference?

•• How fast do pillbugs move?
•• Do pillbugs prefer a dry versus a wet environment?
•• Do pillbugs prefer a cold versus a warm environment?
•• Do pillbugs prefer a light versus a dark environment?
•• When placed in a T-maze, do pillbugs more often take left turns or right turns?
•• Do pillbugs prefer sandy soil versus loam soil?
•• Are pillbugs social animals? If I place 20 pillbugs in a pile, would they prefer to stay
together or spread out?
•• Do pillbugs have a color preference?
•• Do pillbugs prefer a rough surface or a smooth surface?
•• When placed on different surfaces such as paper towels, aluminum foil, wax paper,
or transparent wrap, which surface do pillbugs prefer?
•• Are pillbugs attracted to magnets? Would a pillbug choose an environment with a
magnetic field versus one without a magnetic field?
Each student chooses a question and teams with a partner with the same question
about pillbug behavior. Now, Mrs. Davis suggests that students brainstorm their ideas
and think of a prediction based on their question. She has them write their prediction as
a word statement or hypothesis in the form of an “if, then” statement. Janice and Melissa
write, “If I place 20 pillbugs in a chamber where they can choose between damp and dry
surfaces, the pillbugs will choose the damp surface.” Rob and Mark write, “If I place 15
pillbugs in a chamber where they can choose between light and dark areas, 75% of the
pillbugs will choose the dark areas.”
During the design phase of the investigation, students again brainstorm procedures and
ways to test their questions and hypotheses. They identify all the variables that could affect
the outcome of the experiment and control those variables by selecting one variable, the
manipulating or independent variable, to determine the outcome of the investigation. The
students also select a responding or dependent variable that becomes the variable that is
measured in the investigation. All other variables are controlled or stay the same. Mrs. Davis
helps the students set up and design their investigation by posing the following questions:
•• How will the variables in your experiment be controlled so only one factor affects
the outcome?
•• How will you measure whether your hypothesis is valid or not?
•• Does your procedure align with the hypothesis? Does the design do what it is sup-
posed to do?
As students are designing their investigations, Mrs. Davis provides a blank experi-
mental plan (similar to Figure 3.3) where students identify and fill in the following:
•• The question to be investigated

•• The hypothesis/hypotheses to be tested (if appropriate)
•• The materials needed to carry out the investigation
•• The procedure of the investigation
•• The data collection tables and charts
•• Claim(s) made from the findings
•• Evidence to support the claim(s)
While the students are writing up their design plan, the teacher moves around the
classroom, prompting each student by asking such questions as the following:
•• What materials will you need to carry out your investigation?

•• How many pillbugs will you use in your experiment?
•• What’s the manipulated variable in your experiment?
•• How will you know if your hypothesis/hypotheses is/are correct?
•• What conclusions and claims can you draw from the findings?
At the close of the period, Mrs. Davis collects each group’s experimental plan and
approves each one before the investigation can begin.
The next day, about half the students are ready to start their investigations, others are
still revising their questions or getting materials and setting up their experiments, and some
students are redesigning and tweaking their design plans for the teacher’s approval. For the
next two days, students are immersed in recording data, drawing conclusions, and citing
supporting evidence. The room is transformed into a virtual laboratory of experimentation!
Mrs. Davis proudly watches the students share their ideas and act like real scientists.
As the investigations come to a close, students use the computer lab to organize
their observations, data, claims, and evidence into graphs and charts. Each group must
also communicate its results through oral presentations and written reports. In this
47
Figure 3.3 Isopod Experimental Plan
Question to be investigated
Hypothesis/Hypotheses to be tested (if appropriate)
Materials needed to carry out the investigation
Procedure of the investigation
Data collection tables and charts
Claim(s) made from the findings
Evidence to support the claim(s)
Concluding explanation
class, students are required to make a 5-minute oral argument to the other students on
their question, claim, and evidence. Students also have to complete a one-page written
laboratory report that analyzes the data and provides the reasoning for the claim and
the evidence. The report is a summary of the original design plan but now includes an
explanation of the findings and the newly acquired information. As part of the write-
up, students are encouraged to use spreadsheets and graphs generated by computer to
explain their results. In addition to the final report, students communicate and defend
their findings to the class by using a trifold poster board exhibit or a PowerPoint
presentation.
Resources for Isopods

For more information about pillbugs and isopods, see the following resources.
Burnett, R. (1999). The pillbug project: A guide to investigation. Arlington, VA: National
Science Teachers Association. (This book is for upper elementary and middle school
grades but may be helpful for high school teachers.)
Glase, J., & Palmer, J. (1993). Isopod orientation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Institute for Biology
Teachers, Cornell University.
Mikulka, T. (December, 2000). Isopod inquiry. The Science Teacher, 67(9), 20–22.
The Inquiry Cycle

“Inquiring with Isopods” is just one example of an exploration that encourages students
to raise questions. In analyzing the group’s work, the Inquiry Cycle represents aspects of
most inquiry-based investigations (see Figure 3.4).
1. Inquisition: Stating a “what if” or “I wonder” question to be investigated

2. Acquisition: Brainstorming possible procedures
3. Supposition: Identifying an “I think” or “If . . . then” statement to test
4. Implementation: Designing and carrying out a plan
5. Summation: Collecting evidence and drawing conclusions and claims
6. Exhibition: Sharing and communicating findings
During the inquisition phase, students usually initiate their inquiry by exploring and
posing a question. The question is often stated as a “What if” question. The question can
originate from an open-ended exploration, as with the isopods, or as a discrepant event,
or a teacher-directed activity. In the “Inquiring about Isopods” investigation, the inquisi-
tion phase was initiated by the initial exploration activity.
During the acquisition phase, students rely on their prior experience to brainstorm
possible ideas and solutions to the inquiry. Here students ask, “What do I already know
about pillbugs to answer the question?” In the acquisition phase of the isopod explora-
tion, students’ prior conceptions and assumptions about isopod behavior may affect how
they perceived the outcome of their question.
49
Figure 3.4 The Inquiry Cycle
1 Inquisition:
Stating a question
to be investigated
6 Exhibition: 2 Acquisition:
Sharing and “Brainstorming”
communicating possible solutions
results
Inquiry
Cycle
5 Summation:
Collecting
3 Supposition:
evidence and Selecting a
drawing statement to test
conclusions
4 Implementation:
Designing and
carrying out a plan
During the supposition phase, students consolidate the information under study to
propose a testable statement or an “I think” statement. This phase may include stating
one or more hypotheses to test the question being investigated.
During the implementation phase, students design a plan to test their proposed
statement(s) and carry out appropriate procedures.
During the summation phase, students record and analyze their observations and
data to answer to the original “What if” statement. They also look for patterns and rela-
tionships among the variables and extract evidence from the data to make appropriate
claims.
Finally, during the exhibition phase, students communicate and justify their question,
claim, and evidence to the class. New information and explanations are presented in the
form of argument-based written reports, poster displays, argument-based oral presenta-
tions, and PowerPoint presentations.
The inquiry cycle can serve as a general format for teachers planning inquiry and
argument-based investigations for their students. We should be reminded that the model
serves as a general approach to raising and answering questions. Following the inquiry
cycle, students often enter and reenter the phases at different aspects of their inquiry pro-
cess. Thus the cycle serves as a model to guide students through their science inquiries
and investigations.
Brainstorming
As you can see, during the acquisition phase, brainstorming is an essential element of
scientific inquiry. Brainstorming is not a tool for determining the best solution to a prob-
lem or issue but rather a means for generating as many ideas or solutions as possible to
a question, a problem, or an issue. As high school science teachers, we often underutilize
the value of brainstorming in the inquiry process. This may be due to the extra amount
of time the discussion process takes. Often, we are in a rush to move the inquiry process
along as quickly as possible. In any event, for students to be effective problem solvers, we
must teach them how to engage in a thoughtful dialogue and brainstorm ideas to become
effective group members. When we take time for students to be involved in brainstorm-
ing, we foster higher-level thinking skills such as analyzing, synthesizing, and making
judgments and evaluations, as well as habits of mind such as creativity, openness, and
reflection. According to Eyster (2010), allowing time for students to brainstorm multiple
ideas shows them that the teacher values their creativity. Furthermore, teachers who plan
for brainstorming sessions during scientific inquiry communicate to students that dis-
course and dialogue are integral aspects of the classroom culture.
Before beginning any effective brainstorming session, ground rules must be set. This
does not mean that rules or boundaries are set so tightly that students cannot be creative.
It does mean, however, that a code of conduct for person-to-person interactions has been
set. It is when this code of conduct is breached that people stop being creative and the
brainstorming and sharing process degenerates.
The best way to set meaningful ground rules is to have the students or teams create their
own. In the beginning of the school year, and before small-group discussions, allow stu-
dents to create their own brainstorming ground rules. This should provide an opportunity
to practice the skills necessary for an effective brainstorming session. It also allows the
students or teams to take ownership of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. Once the
list of ground rules is generated, be sure to gain consensus that brainstorming sessions will
be conducted according to them. Then post them in a highly visible location in the room.
With procedures for setting ground rules in mind, the following are key rules that
high school students often identify as useful when conducting a brainstorming session.
•• There are no dumb ideas. It is okay to give a wild or wacky idea. This is a brain-
storming session, not a serious discussion that requires only serious solutions.
•• Don’t criticize other people’s ideas. This is not a debate, discussion, or forum for
one person to display superiority over another.
•• Build on other students’ ideas. Often, an idea suggested by one student can trigger
a bigger or better idea by another student.
•• Strive for quantity over quality; the more creative ideas, the better. As the teacher/
facilitator, make a challenge to the teams to come up with as many ideas as possible.
•• There are no “put-downs” or judgments made of individual ideas or suggestions.
•• All ideas are recorded. One team member may be selected as the recorder.
•• Everyone in the group is encouraged to contribute.
•• There are no lengthy discussions. Contributions made should be to the point. Set a
time limit on the discussion/brainstorming session.
To clarify the roles and responsibilities of the individual group members, consider the
following preparation questions:
•• What is the desired outcome of the brainstorming session?

•• Who will lead or facilitate the brainstorming session to meet the outcome?
51
•• Who can write quickly enough to record the ideas contributed without slowing
down the group process?
•• Who will keep time for the discussion session?
•• Who will report the findings of the brainstorming session to the entire class?
During the inquiry process, a brainstorming session usually starts with an idea or a
question. The question, in turn, often leads to a divergent level of thinking toward a solu-
tion to the question. Everyone in the group is given a chance to talk or give input without
comment or ridicule. This is followed by a convergent level of thinking designed to build
consensus in reducing all the possible solutions to a manageable few, discussion of the
few that remain, and selection of an acceptable procedure to investigate.
During this process, the teacher makes periodic process checks with each of the
groups and clarifies questions that are unclear or confusing. Students may need assis-
tance from the teacher in eliminating or combining procedures to form a better investiga-
tion. Students may also need assistance in ordering individual steps of the investigation
into a logical pattern or sequence. In the end, students should determine if the procedure
or solution is appropriate and meets the purpose of the question. In other words, does
this procedure lead us to answering the question being investigated?
Why Brainstorming Sometimes Fails

Science teachers may find that during the inquiry process, brainstorming sessions
sometimes fail because of the role played by the facilitator, a pivotal part of the dis-
cussion process. Thus, the teacher’s selection of the student facilitator is extremely
important. A good facilitator creates a trusting climate, stays neutral throughout the
discussion, treats all members as equals, listens intently, remains flexible, and pro-
vides closure to the discussion. A poor facilitator, on the other hand, becomes the
center of the group’s activity, puts down other students’ ideas, does not manage
group conflict, is passive, allows a few people to dominate the process, or lets the
discussion ramble.
Brainstorming provides an excellent opportunity for high school students to hone
their critical thinking skills. Make the time in your instructional planning to have brain-
storming sessions, and students will certainly benefit from the experience.
Questions for Reflection

and Discussion
1. Why did Mrs. Davis have students “pair and share” their prior experiences?
2. Why did Mrs. Davis place students’ responses on the board?
3. What are the benefits of making a concept map of students’ preconceptions?
4. Why did the teacher have students explore their pillbugs before presenting and
explaining the Isopod Fact Sheet?
5. How can a teacher realistically monitor 8–12 investigations going on simultaneously?
6. What is the value in having students make oral arguments and presentations to the
class? How do oral presentations support speaking and listening skills?
7. During the isopod investigation, you read about students exhibiting the National
Research Council’s five essential features of scientific inquiry:
•• Learners are engaged by scientifically oriented questions.

•• Learners give priority to evidence, which allows them to develop and evaluate
explanations that address scientifically oriented questions.
•• Learners formulate explanations from evidence to address scientifically oriented
questions.
•• Learners evaluate their experiences in the light of alternative explanations, par-
ticularly those reflecting scientific understanding.
•• Learners communicate and justify their proposed explanations. (NRC, 2000a, p. 25)
Identify parts in the isopod investigation where students demonstrated each
feature listed above and explain how the isopod investigation featured aspects of
inquiry and argumentation.
4
Choosing to Become
an Inquiry-Based
Teacher
I n Chapters 1 and 2, you read about scientific inquiry and the role argumentation plays
in painting a picture of the work of real scientists. In Chapter 3, you read a case study
on how one high school science teacher integrates scientific inquiry and argumenta-
tion into a science lab using isopods. Now in Chapter 4, you are asked to reflect on the
reason you decided to become a science teacher and how that choice may lead you to
becoming an inquiry-based teacher. This is an important aspect in the “discovery/becoming”
process because it drives you to think about the meaning behind the decisions you make
that affect your teaching career and ultimately your legacy as a teacher. Balancing the
meaning with the mechanics in becoming an inquiry-based teacher, you’ll envision a clear
direction for your professional goals and aspirations. In this chapter, we will look at the
meaning (the why) of becoming an inquiry science teacher. In subsequent chapters, we
will look at the mechanics (the how).
A Choice in Teaching
At some point in your life, you decided to become a high school science teacher. Did you
ever ask, “Why?” Was your decision prompted by a longing to work with high school
students and to broaden their understanding and appreciation of the natural world? Was
it your love for science? Were your parents teachers? Or was there a particular teacher
you had in your life that influenced you to become a science teacher? As you contemplate
becoming an inquiry-based science teacher, your reason for that decision is just as important
as the motivation that led you to become a teacher in the first place.
With your decision made to be a high school science teacher, the next question is—
what kind of science teacher do you want to be a year from now, 3 years from now, or
53
5 years from now? It’s a very simple yet profound question. And although it may seem
like a rhetorical question, it’s a question you should ask yourself repeatedly.
Having a conceptual image of the kind of teacher you want to be arises from a great
deal of thought and reflection. For each person it’s a matter of choice. What is it about
teaching science that excites you? What drives your passion about teaching science? Is
there a particular aspect or method of teaching you would like to specialize in? For
example, some teachers choose to get deeply involved in using handheld technology,
such as sensors and probes, in their classrooms. Some choose to get involved with inte-
grating engineering design with science, while others like doing micro scale labs. There
are teachers who like using Socratic seminars in class or integrating computer technology
into labs. Still others like using formative assessments; or working with local museums,
zoos, or colleges; or focusing on gender equity or English language learners in science; or
teaching through scientific inquiry and argumentation—the list goes on and on. What’s
important is that you choose something that excites and energizes you, something that
takes you beyond being just an ordinary teacher of science, something that traffics you far
from a generic state of teaching. I often suggest that teachers specialize in one particular
aspect of teaching science and become an expert by reading about it and attending profes-
sional development sessions on the topic. In other words, find something about teaching
science that you are fervently passionate about and choose to make it your area of profi-
ciency. For the purpose of this book, it is presumed that becoming an inquiry-based sci-
ence teacher is the decision you made. The first step in your journey to becoming an
inquiry-based teacher is to seek to understand the question, “Why did I choose to take the
road to inquiry?” The answer starts by inquiring within yourself. What is it about inquiry
that will energize your teaching and your classroom? As you picture that classroom in
your mind, form an image of yourself interacting and engaging your students with excit-
ing and stimulating lessons. What is it about this classroom that complements your
philosophy for teaching? As you inquire within your beliefs about teaching, you begin to
move your ideas out of your gut and into your head. By doing so, you articulate the kind
of teacher you want to be. You also are able to eloquently and persuasively express the
meaning of inquiry to yourself, to your students, to colleagues, to your administration,
and to parents and community members. So ask yourself the question and listen for the
answers from within. See where your inner voice directs you. Follow your heart. Trust
your instincts and plan your journey sensibly. Take time to establish meaningful mile-
stones along the way: places where you pause and reflect on your travels thus far and
reassess your next steps, planning course corrections if needed and reevaluating if this
journey is right for you—for the teacher you aspire to be and the professional legacy you
choose to create.
Too often we concern ourselves about the mechanics and the methodologies of
teaching without giving time to consider the personal and philosophical issues of teach-
ing. Right now, I’m asking you to take time to listen to your inner voice. What is driving
you to become an inquiry-based teacher? The process of “becoming” is, in reality, a very
personal experience. No two journeys are the same, different paths may be followed, and
your “mile markers” along the way will differ from those of others. But all the journeys
should have one thing in common—time in the beginning to articulate answers to the
essential question—what drives me to take this journey?
The road to instructional renewal and reform can be a stimulating and adventurous
one. The impetus to initiate or change your present teaching practice to an inquiry
approach is most effective when the motivation stems from both an internal locus of con-
trol (from within yourself) as well as an external locus of control (from mentors, support
CHOOSING TO BECOME AN INQUIRY-BASED TEACHER
55
groups, and administrators). The combined motivational sources will take you on a
determined journey brimming with enthusiasm. The passion you feel, coupled with the
motivation you have, will spark a personal, self-directed drive. It is that self-directed
learning that will, in turn, sustain your pursuit to becoming an inquiry teacher.
Self-Directed Learning
In the words of the Chinese philosopher, Lao-tzu, “A journey of a thousand miles begins
with a single step.” Now let’s look into that first step.
Self-directed learning is an integral aspect of becoming an inquiry teacher. Richard
Boyatzis, a leading specialist in the change process, explains the five stages or discoveries
in self-directed learning; that is, learning in which an individual intentionally develops
and strengthens an aspect of his or her “self.” According to Goleman, Boyatzis, and
McKee (2002), “The steps do not unfold in a smooth, orderly way, but rather follow a
sequence, with each step demanding different amounts of time and effort” (p. 109).
The first step of discovery is assessing your present self—who you are right now, how
you teach, and your deep-seated beliefs about how students learn. This step includes
reflecting on your present strengths and weaknesses as a teacher and the instructional
strategies you most often use to teach.
The second step involves forming a desired image of your ideal self, where you reflect
on your professional aspirations and the kind of teacher you want to be. In the case of
becoming an inquiry-based teacher, determining this desired state motivates you to
develop your inquiry skills and dispositions. As you begin to understand the type of
teacher you want to be, you reflect on the values and commitment that will move you
toward this goal. Goleman et al. (2002) call this the “fuel” that drives one through the dif-
ficult and often frustrating process of change.
In the third step, you acknowledge the gap between the kind of teacher you are right
now and the kind of teacher you want to be and consider a professional development plan
that leads you from your present state to your desired state. Whether your plan becomes a
formal document that you commit to writing or is planted firmly in your mind, it is essen-
tial that you formalize your action plan and determine the professional development—
additional readings, college courses, online resources, professional conferences, collegial
study groups—whatever you need that will move you closer to where you want to
be. The more you commit to the plan, the more intrinsically rewarding the plan will
become.
The fourth step involves learning new instructional strategies and improving your
performance in the classroom through continuous practice and reflection. This trial-and-
error phase requires patience and persistence because not everything you try may work
out quite as you expect. Student inquiries need constant refining. You will find yourself
trying a new investigation, noting what went well and what you plan to do differently
the next time you present that activity.
The final step entails developing a support system, which often occurs throughout the
self-directed learning process. A support system may include an experienced inquiry
teacher, mentor, or role model. Or it may just be another teacher in your school who is as
interested in inquiry as you are. Collaborating and teaming make the learning process
less problematic and provide a vehicle for sharing your accomplishments and frustra-
tions in a nonthreatening way. It also fosters a trusting relationship where two or more
teachers can professionally share and discuss their students’ work.
Regardless of how you plan to begin increasing your capacity to teach through
inquiry, do not do it alone. Seek out a friend or a group of people who share your values
and beliefs about teaching and learning. Ongoing conversation with colleagues will help
enhance your skills and development. Becoming an inquiry-based teacher will require
creating and sustaining reflection practices and discourse with other inquiry teachers. For
that reason, it’s imperative to develop a support network in which teachers share their
lessons, accomplishments, and frustrations while offering encouragement and reassur-
ance to each other. A local college or university science education department can be a
resource for developing and facilitating a teacher study and support group.
Finally, the school administration must demonstrate trust that teachers can make the
appropriate curricular decisions that will bring inquiry and argumentation-based instruc-
tional strategies and change to the classroom level. Lack of support from peers and
administration has discouraged too many teachers from building their capacity to
develop a learner-centered classroom.
The Top 10 Reasons Why Teachers

Say They Can’t Teach Through Inquiry
Although the purpose of this chapter is to explore the essential steps in the professional
journey for becoming an inquiry-based science teacher, let’s first address several fre-
quently voiced statements by non-inquiry teachers about inquiry-based teaching (drum-
roll, please!).
10. I have heard a lot about inquiry, but I’m not sure what all the fuss is about.
9. Inquiry is not a big focus of the textbook I am using.
8. The students in my classes don’t have the background or the experience to do
inquiry. They are basic skill kids who want to be given the answer from their
teacher.
7. I’ve been teaching my way for 20 years. Lecturing works fine for me. Students
absorb the information pretty readily.
6. Students need to be told how to do a science experiment. Learning to follow pro-
cedures and structure is important in the science lab.
5. Students learn best through lecture and follow-up discussion. They like doing
worksheets. It keeps the class quiet. That’s what they are used to.
4. The labs in my teacher’s edition are pretty simple and straightforward. They tell
the students what materials they need and how to do the lab. I feel more comfort-
able giving traditional labs. That’s the way I was taught.
3. I don’t have enough supplies and equipment to teach through inquiry.
2. When you teach through inquiry, you can lose control of the class.
1. I have a standardized curriculum and a final exam to teach to. I don’t have
enough classroom time to do inquiry.
You may have heard some version of these statements from teachers in your depart-
ment. You may have even expressed some of these thoughts yourself. In any case, these
57
comments and the issues they raise are addressed in this book. Statements 9 and 10 are
issues about understanding the meaning of inquiry and the nature of science (Chapter 1).
Statements 7 and 8 are matters concerning the change process (Chapter 4). Statements 5
and 6 concern themselves with pedagogy (Chapter 5). Statements 3 and 4 are topics dealing
with translating theory into practice and modifying existing labs into an inquiry
format (Chapters 6 & 7), while statements 1 and 2 focus on managing and assessing the
inquiry-based classroom (Chapters 8, 9, & 10).
Myths and Misconceptions About

Inquiry-Based Teaching
Embedded in the “Top 10” above are misunderstandings we hear about inquiry-based
teaching. Without going into elaborate details about each, here are several likely misconcep-
tions high school teachers may have about inquiry. Reflect upon each of the myths and mis-
conceptions individually or discuss them in your study or support group. Model the process
of argumentation by stating a rebuttal to each of the misconceptions. Use the templates and
starter sentences provided in the Preface and Chapter 2 to phrase your refutations:
•• Doing hands-on labs is the same as doing inquiry.

•• Inquiry is unstructured and chaotic.
•• Inquiry involves asking a lot of questions.
•• Doing scientific inquiry is the same as using the scientific method.
•• Only high-achieving students can learn through inquiry.
•• Inquiry is the latest fad in teaching science.
•• You can’t assess inquiry.
•• Students learn about scientific inquiry from doing a science inquiry.
What’s Your Instructional Pie?

In an earlier section on self-directed learning, you read that assessing your present “self”
is an important first step in the journey to becoming an inquiry-based science teacher. The
instructional pie activity helps you identify your present state of teaching for five com-
mon instructional methods and compare it to your desired state. After “baking” your
instructional pie, you can ponder ways to advance from your present state to your
desired state and plan the kinds of professional development needed to close the gap.
To begin the activity, first consider the following six methods of teaching:
•• Lecturing · Doing hands-on structured activities or labs

•• Discussing · Doing problem-solving activities
•• Demonstrating · Doing inquiry-based investigations
If you are working alone, briefly review the six methods above to yourself to have
a clear sense of each. If you are working in a small group, spend a few minutes discuss-
ing each of the methods so that each group participant has a similar understanding of
the method. Using the instructional pie handout (see Figure 4.1), fill out the first pie
illustrating the percentage of time you presently spend on each of the six methods.
Figure 4.2 shows the present pie for what might be a conventional high school chemis-
try teacher.
Figure 4.1
What’s Your Instructional Pie?
Present
Instructional
Practice
Desired
Instructional
Practice
59
Figure 4.2
Providing inquiry-based
investigations
Providing problem-solving
activities
Telling/
presenting
Providing
hands-on
activities
and labs
Showing
demonstrations
Discussing
After the present pie is completed, fill in the desired pie (where you would like to be
1 or 2 years from now) in reference to the same six methods. As you compare the two pies,
you may observe a difference in the two pies, or you may confirm that your present situ-
ation is already where you want to be. In either case, determine the level of similarity and
difference between the two. Share your pies with colleagues and look for percentages of
similarity among those who want to become more inquiry based. Also recall the section
on self-directed learning and reflect on the kinds of professional development options
you need to close the gap between the two pies and continue your growth toward becom-
ing an inquiry science teacher.
If you are a risk taker, have each of your students anonymously fill out an instruc-
tional pie for their class and compare your perception to theirs. If the pies align, you have
a good grasp of your students’ insight into the kinds of instruction methods you use in
class. If there is a substantial difference in the pies, it’s obvious your perception does not
match your students’ perception.
Steps in Becoming an
Inquiry-Based Teacher
Identified below are five essential steps in becoming an inquiry-based teacher. Each step,
in essence, plays a significant part in developing your capacity to teach through inquiry
and moving from ordinary to extraordinary. And although the book’s overall focus is on
the seamless integration of inquiry and argumentation, for now we will focus just on the
inquiry aspect. Later, we will see how argumentation folds fluidly into the process of hav-
ing students design and carry out scientific investigations, as well as having them defend
the findings from their investigations.
The five essential steps include the following:
1. Build an understanding of inquiry.

2. Develop an understanding of the change process.
3. Construct a mind-set for the emerging pedagogy.
4. Translate new knowledge into practice.
5. Create a culture of inquiry.
Each step is briefly described here but will be further elaborated on in the upcoming
chapters.
In Step 1, Build an understanding of inquiry, teachers come to recognize that science
is based on questions. Science is also empirical—meaning it is based on observations
and inferences. Thus understanding the nature of science (NOS) is an important part of
becoming an inquiry teacher. And since science does not always proceed in a linear,
step-by-step fashion, differentiating between the “scientific method” and scientific
inquiry is equally vital. You will note the scientific method is in quotes. Some will argue
that there is no one scientific method as commonly proposed in many science textbooks.
Different questions require different methods to answer them. Not all investigations
involve controlled experiments. As we come to understand scientific inquiry and the
NOS, we realize that scientific knowledge is tentative and advances by engaging in
inquiry and argumentation. Actually, since you recently read Chapter 1 on constructing
an understanding of inquiry, you have already completed a significant portion of your
first step. Congratulations!
In Step 2, Develop an understanding of the change process, teachers grasp that the
process of change and transformation of classroom practice takes 3 to 5 years and that
systemic change includes the three Rs:
•• Restructuring the science curriculum and lessons, including the modification of

traditional labs
•• Retooling the teacher’s instructional strategies and questioning skills through
ongoing professional development
•• Reculturing the classroom norms and relationships to foster inquiry-based strate-
gies and a learner-centered environment
Two books recommended as introductory readings about the change process are
Spencer Johnson’s (1998) Who Moved My Cheese? and John Kotter and Holger Rathgeber’s
61
(2005) Our Iceberg Is Melting. Both are short, lighthearted books on dealing with change in
your personal and professional life. The books are artful in taking the complex issue of
change and presenting it in simple story form.
Instructional change also involves setting professional goals and expectations. This
was introduced previously in the instructional pie activity. By identifying the present and
desired states, one self-assesses the present self, forms an image of the ideal self, and
plans for appropriate professional development to improve performance through prac-
tice and reflection.
Along with the change process, it is equally essential to monitor progress through
rubrics and self-assessments.
Step 3, Construct a mind-set for the emerging pedagogy, is one of the more important
steps in becoming an inquiry teacher. As teachers change from a transactional to a trans-
formational model of instruction, they give up the notion that students’ brains are like
little sponges absorbing everything the teacher says and shift toward a constructivist
model that suggests students need to negotiate meaning through exploration and discus-
sion. Chapter 5 will help you develop a constructivist perspective on how students learn
and will suggest a theory of learning that complements inquiry-based teaching. It will
help us understand that knowledge is constructed: not imparted, transmitted, or absorbed.
In Step 4, Translate new knowledge into practice, you will learn how to modify tradi-
tional, time-honored labs and make them more inquiry based. Whereas Chapters 1
through 5 deal with the meaning of scientific inquiry, Chapters 6 through 10 deal with the
mechanics of inquiry. Like two sides of the same coin, both aspects are equally essential in
the process of being an inquiry teacher. Translating new knowledge into practice also
means enhancing your questioning skills. Inquiry is not just finding the right answers; it’s
seeking the right questions.
And finally, Step 5, Create a culture of inquiry, puts it all together. In Chapter 11 (the
basis for Step 5) we will answer a series of questions: What is classroom culture? What
does the teacher do in a culture of inquiry? What do students do in a culture of inquiry?
What does an inquiry classroom look like?
Monitoring Your Progress

Regardless of the path one takes, the transition to becoming an inquiry-based teacher usu-
ally follows four distinct stages: starting at the pre-inquiry approach, next exploring inquiry,
followed by transitioning to inquiry, and finally practicing inquiry (Llewellyn, 2007; Marshall,
Horton, & White, 2009). At each stage, teachers will exhibit increasingly effective inquiry
strategies. One such protocol, the Electronic Quality of Inquiry Protocol or EQUIP (Marshall,
Horton, & White, 2009), is designed to measure the quantity and quality of inquiry instruc-
tion being facilitated in K−12 math and science classrooms. The instrument does not seek
to measure all forms of quality instruction—only those that are inquiry based in nature. For
more information see http://iim-web.clemson.edu/?page_id=166.
In following the five steps, you follow a plan for success. But a word of caution: Don’t
expect to become an inquiry-based teacher overnight. Honing your skills and strategies
takes time. I often say, “You need a Crock-Pot to cook inquiry, not a microwave!” In most
cases, teachers may need years to polish their inquiry teaching techniques. There are no
shortcuts to expedite the journey. Be patient, and with a smidgen of persistence, tenacity,
and coaching, you will find yourself becoming more comfortable using the strategies and
techniques that will bring about instructional change in your classroom.
In the final analysis, it’s important to realize how your goals and beliefs foster the
legacy you create as a teacher. You are at the center in determining your legacy as an
inquiry teacher.
INQ IRY
We can’t spell inquiry without
U
The Case of Angela Bicknell

The following is a case study of Angela Bicknell, a third-year high school chemistry
teacher at a rural high school in a conservatively minded K−12 school district. Angela is
completing a master’s program at a nearby university that emphasizes a constructivist
approach to learning via inquiry-based methods. As a requirement for one of Angela’s
courses in the program, she was given the assignment of writing a vision statement for
her teaching career. At first, Angela did not see the merits of the assignment. Later,
though, she thought of the far too many teachers she had in high school whose goal it was
to get through the textbook by the end of the school year. Angela eventually began to
appreciate the value of constructing a career road map with benchmarks and mileposts
along the way. At the conclusion of the assignment, Angela admitted to her professor, “If
you have no professional development plan, one year becomes just like the next. I now
have purpose and direction in my teaching.”
What Is a Vision Statement?

A vision statement is a vibrant picture of a desired outcome that inspires and energizes
you to achieve your targeted goal. A vision statement may initially be conceived in the
mind, but sooner or later it must make its way to print to become truly operational. In
Angela’s case, from her university coursework, she knew the value of connecting theory
with practice. So for her vision statement she decided to use a publication from her course-
work, Effective Science Instruction: What Does Research Tell Us? (Banilower, Cohen, Pasley, &
Weiss, 2010). Angela wrote her vision statement in two parts; the beginning started with
what “I know” about effective science instruction, followed by “therefore” statements that
link research and practice. Here’s Angela’s vision statement, founded on six key assertions.
1. I know motivation plays a key role in student learning. If students aren’t motivated,
they will not demonstrate considerable curiosity and wonder about the topic or an
intrinsic desire to learn. Therefore, I choose to develop a culturally relevant curricu-
lum that is based on students’ backgrounds and interests. The classroom climate will
foster thoughtful and respectful consideration of alternative viewpoints and ideas,
as well as a personal ownership of learning. I will provide cognitive “hooks”
throughout each lesson (not just at the beginning) to keep their attention and interest
levels sustained. I also know that getting high grades is key motivation for some
students; therefore, I will remind students that learning is a lifelong process.
2. I know students are not coming into my chemistry class as empty vessels. At the
high school level, they have already experienced the natural world for 15 to 17
years. However, their individual experiences with the topic I am teaching varies
from student to student. Thus I cannot expect that all students will learn at the
63
same pace. Therefore, I want to use preassessments to elicit students’ prior

knowledge and conceptions about the topic. I will then use that information to
design lessons that link their prior knowledge with the new knowledge to be
gained from the lessons I present. I also understand that students coming into
my class have different abilities and levels of learning. I will show them what
quality performance is and what it means to really know a subject by pressing
all students toward a defined standard of excellence. Although I will provide
extra help for those who need it, I know students progress at different rates and
with different degrees of success. I will help students understand the standard
for excellence, and I will push them closer toward reaching it. Unfortunately,
some of my students will never fully meet the standard. That’s okay; I realize
that. At least they will learn about excellence and the incremental steps toward
reaching it.
3. I know my students learn best when they are engaging in a rigorous and relevant
curriculum. Therefore, I will hold my students to rigorous content and perfor-
mance standards. My learning goals will be clear, concise, measurable, and consis-
tent with district, state, and national science standards. I will prepare meaningful
experiences for students by designing frequent inquiry-based investigations that
allow them to take ownership of the design and the implementation of their work.
I will provide opportunities for students to justify and defend the findings from
their investigations through argumentation.
4. I know argumentation is an essential skill for becoming a scientifically literate

individual. Being versed in skepticism will help students to separate unfounded
claims and speculations from those that are supported with sound evidence. This
ability applies to their lives within the classroom as well as beyond the classroom
walls. Consequently, as students examine their present conceptions and are faced
with new knowledge that contradicts their prior knowledge, they will be under-
going a conceptual change. Therefore, I want to constantly encourage students to
provide supporting details for their claims and conclusions. By doing so, students
will become adept in backing up their statements with substantiated proof. This
way, they will be less likely to be hoodwinked by fast-talking charlatans. I will
foster critical thinking skills through scientific argumentation in my lessons and
labs by having students propose, support, critique, refine, justify, and defend
their positions and statements. Above all, I will help them think critically.
5. I know as students construct new knowledge, they need to make sense of the con-
cepts being presented and weigh those new ideas against their previously held
notions. Therefore, when I do present lectures, they will be engaging and relevant
to the learning outcomes. The lectures will be designed to reinforce the inquiries
and tasks students complete and will advance sensemaking of the material being
studied. I will also integrate learning style strategies into my lessons. In addition,
since students use different intelligences to make sense of the subject being studied,
not all students learn best by the same technique. Each has his or her individual
way to learn. I want to assist students in making sense of the topic by presenting
the information in diverse formats using multiple intelligences.
6. Last, since teacher-pupil relationships are an essential aspect of any classroom, I
desire to develop a personal relationship with every one of my students. My style
will be amenable but within expectations of performance and respect. I will be open
and honest with them. In short, I will respect each student as an individual. I will
also reach out to the families of my students and engage them as equal partners in
the learning process.
Not Settling for Mediocrity

Angela’s vision statement clearly demonstrates passion, drive, and commitment—three
essential ingredients for a successful and productive teaching career. It also embraces a
sense of professional empowerment where she feels in control of her classroom and
accountable for student growth and success. It becomes obvious that Angela chooses to
integrate specific aspects of her methodology based on her belief system about how stu-
dents learn. Like a connection between claims and evidence, Angela’s vision statement
supposes a direct connection between her philosophy about learning and how that philoso-
phy plays out in her teaching. It is also clear through her statements that she is not settling
for mediocrity, as she saw so many of her high school teachers do. For Angela, student
engagement matters! From her coursework she is learning to soar beyond the cloud of
mediocrity and to provide opportunities for her students to think critically and develop
ownership for their own learning. At this time, Angela chooses to focus her energies on
becoming an exemplary high school inquiry-based science teacher. In due course, she will
become effective and efficient in managing her classroom instructional hours to make time
for in-depth inquiry and argument-based opportunities. At only 28 years old, this appren-
tice teacher has chosen a road to follow and is already shaping her legacy as a teacher.

1. You probably had several inspirational teachers in high school. For many of us,
they motivated us to become teachers. Think of one teacher in particular who has
shaped you into the kind of teacher you would like to be.
2. The French writer, Antoine de Saint-Exupery, is best remembered for his 1943
novella, The Little Prince. He is quoted as saying, “If you want to build a ship, don’t
drum up people to collect wood and don’t assign them tasks and work, but rather
teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea.” How does this statement
apply to becoming an inquiry-based science teacher?
3. Steve Jobs, the founder and CEO of Apple, made the following statement at the
Stanford commencement address on June 12, 2005, “When I was 17, I read a quote that
went something like: ‘If you live each day as if it was your last, someday you’ll most
certainly be right.’ . . . Since then . . . I have looked in the mirror every morning and
asked myself: ‘If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about
to do today?’ And whenever the answer has been ‘No’ for too many days in a row, I
know I need to change something. . . . Your time is limited. . . . Don’t let the noise of
others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the cour-
age to follow your heart and intuition. . . . Everything else is secondary.” How do the
choices you make about teaching, your self-determination, and following your inner
voice guide you on your journey in becoming an inquiry-based teacher?
4. Return to the section in the chapter that lists the top 10 reasons why teachers say
they can’t teach through inquiry. For each reason, write a rebuttal based on what
you know about effective inquiry teaching. Include a suggestion to counteract each
reason provided.
5
Developing a
Philosophy for Inquiry
O ne of the prerequisites for becoming an inquiry-based teacher is embracing a

philosophical mind-set founded on the ideals and principles of constructivism.
Today, there are as many interpretations of constructivism as there are interpreta-
tions of inquiry, yet many high school science teachers may still be unaware of the prom-
inence that constructivism has attained in the last 25 years and its implications for science
education, instructional reform, and, specifically, inquiry-based classrooms. In this chap-
ter, you will gain a deeper understanding of how high school students learn through a
constructivist approach. You will also read several constructivist teaching strategies that
parallel this philosophy of learning.
Although it has implications for the classroom, constructivism is not about teaching
strategies, nor is it about designing curriculum. Rather, it is one theory or philosophy
about how an individual learns, one in which the student is embedded in active engage-
ment and is constantly constructing and reconstructing knowledge through hands-on
interactions. Because the tenets of constructivism align closely with the practice of
inquiry, it becomes essential that inquiry-based teachers have a firm foundation in the
propositions of constructivism.
This chapter will (a) introduce the philosophy and historical development of
constructivism that have shaped our understanding of how high school students
learn science, (b) discuss how one’s prior knowledge and misconceptions can influ-
ence learning, and (c) present constructivist learning strategies compatible with
inquiry- and learner-centered classrooms. By understanding constructivist principles,
we can better envision our role as inquiry-based teachers. For that reason, it becomes
crucial that science teachers interested in inquiry be able to articulate their philoso-
phy of teaching and learning and apply it to classroom practice. After all, our values,
beliefs, and even prejudices about teaching and learning are reflected in our
classroom culture. Our classrooms, in a sense, mirror and resonate with what we
believe are good teaching and learning.
65
What Is Constructivism?
Constructivism is a theory about how we come to know what we know. It is founded on
the premise that children, adolescents, and even adults construct or make meaning about
the world around them based on the context of their existing knowledge. We do this by
reflecting on our prior experiences. In this way, each of us constructs our own mental
models, or schema, as we activate our experiences to develop new conceptual structures.
In a constructivist point of view, the learner is constantly filtering incoming information
based on his or her existing conceptions and preconceived notions to construct and recon-
struct his or her own understanding. Thus, the meaning of “knowing” is an active,
adaptive, and evolutionary process.
The constructivist perspective is startlingly distinct from earlier views and theories
about learning. Behaviorism, one earlier view, is built on the premise that learning is an
acquisition or change in observable behavior initiated through stimuli and responses.
Although behavioral psychology or operant conditioning is considered useful when
applying positive and negative reinforcements, it does not account for the cognitive
aspect of learning. Objectivism, occasionally paired with behaviorism, presumes that all
knowledge exists externally and independently from the learner and that learning con-
sists of imparting that body of knowledge from one person to another. Contrary to behav-
iorists’ and objectivists’ views, constructivists subscribe neither to the supposition that
students “absorb” information from the teacher nor to the belief that knowledge is
imparted, acquired, or transmitted from one individual to another. Constructivists believe
that learning is self-regulating and socially mediated as the student actively engages,
interacts, and operates within the confines of his or her environment. Learning, to the
constructivist, is focused on cognitive, not behavioral, processes. Constructivists do not
view the mind as a “blank slate” or an “empty vessel,” as in John Locke’s famous expres-
sion tabula rasa; teachers cannot dispense or pour information directly into a student’s
head. In the constructivist approach, the student is an active participant in the learning
process. Students enter our classrooms with years of prior knowledge and even miscon-
ceptions that greatly affect how they interpret and make meaningful interpretations of the
phenomena being studied. According to the National Research Council (2000b),
students come into the classroom with preconceptions about how the world
works. If their initial understanding is not engaged, they may fail to grasp the new
concepts and information that are taught, or they may learn for the purposes of a
test but revert to their preconceptions outside the classroom. (p. 14)
This chapter and the accompanying case studies focus on the attention science
teachers need to place on what their high school students are thinking about as they
undertake inquiry investigations.
Traditional Versus Constructivist Classrooms

To construct an understanding of constructivism, let’s consider two classrooms: one
traditional, teacher-centered, and one constructivist, student-centered. In this case study,
Mrs. Hennessey, a biology teacher at Northshore High School, is presenting an introduc-
tory unit on how the leaf carries out photosynthesis to her general biology students. In
this classroom, student desks are arranged in straight rows, with the teacher’s desk in the
DEVELOPING A PHILOSOPHY FOR INQUIRY
67
front center of the room. Mrs. Hennessey uses a single textbook for studying biology,
along with several demonstrations and labs she has mastered from use over many years.
During the unit, students take notes, fill out handouts and worksheets that emphasize
rote memorization, and when time and supplies are available, perform laboratory activi-
ties that verify information that was presented on previous days. Mrs. Hennessey starts
the unit by telling students that photosynthesis is the process in which green plants use
light energy to make food. She goes on to explain that “photo” means “light” and “syn-
thesis” means “to put together,” and she indicates that “photosynthesis” is quite an
appropriate name for the process. Students then copy the formula for photosynthesis, in
both words and chemical notation, as she writes it on the board. Mrs. Hennessey contin-
ues by explaining in detail the process of photosynthesis and the role that light, carbon
dioxide, and water play in making food for plants. Later in the first day’s lesson,
Mrs. Hennessey goes on to describe the production of sugar and oxygen as products in
photosynthesis.
The following day, she teaches the importance of photosynthesis by introducing the
carbon dioxide cycle and the interdependence of plants and animals in their quest to
survive. The teacher presents a lab experience to view the cross section of a leaf and to
identify the different leaf cells. During the lab, students use the cross section and their
textbooks to label the different cell layers and structures of the leaf. At the end of the les-
son, students use their notes and textbook to prepare for a paper-and-pencil unit test. In
the test, students are asked to define the term photosynthesis and state its formula. Another
section includes labeling a cross section of a leaf similar to the illustration from the lab.
In this classroom, Mrs. Hennessey is the information provider and views the students
as passive learners who have come to the classroom to know and master a fixed body of
information. Information is divided into distinct and separate parts, with little emphasis
on the students internalizing the information.
Mr. Travers is also a biology teacher at Northshore High School, and, like
Mrs. Hennessey, he is presenting an introductory unit on photosynthesis to his general
biology students. In Mr. Travers’s classroom, student desks are sometimes arranged in
straight rows, sometimes in groups of four, and sometimes in the shape of a “U.” Mr.
Travers allows the purpose of the lesson to determine the appropriate room setup. Mr.
Travers uses several textbooks and primary sources for studying biology. He keeps a col-
lection of Science and Scientific American magazines on the shelf for students, along with
other science books and resources. Mr. Travers starts the lesson by having students think
about and record what they know about the leaf as the food manufacturing site and
encourages them to write down whatever comes to mind when they think about the term
photosynthesis.
After 2 minutes, he tells them, “Now turn to your partner and tell him or her your
prior understandings about the word ‘photosynthesis.’ Take 2 minutes to share your
thoughts and experiences about the word ‘photosynthesis’ with your partner.” At the
end of the “pair and share” activity, he asks several students to share their understand-
ings about photosynthesis with the class. As students share their ideas, Mr. Travers
writes and arranges their thoughts in a concept map on the front board. The rest of the
period is spent having students work in groups to view a prepared section of a leaf cross
section and compare it to the illustration in the book. As students are viewing the leaf
section, Mr. Travers walks around the room answering their questions and posing his
own to students.
The next day, students take notes from a brief presentation and overview on the
cross section of the leaf as it relates to the first day’s activity of exploration and sharing
previous understandings. Mr. Travers now presents a question to the class: What would
happen if you took away or changed one of the requirements for photosynthesis? This
investigation provides an opportunity for students to choose an inquiry relevant to them
and observe the changes in the leaf’s food-making process. In the investigation, some
students choose to cover one or both sides of the leaf with Vaseline, peanut butter, or even
nail polish. Others choose to cover the leaf with aluminum foil, wax paper, or clear trans-
parent wrap. Some want to find out how light affects the rate of photosynthesis, while
others want to know how different colored light affects the rate of photosynthesis. Still
others investigate how the availability of carbon dioxide affects photosynthesis. As stu-
dents carry out their investigations, they document and record their daily progress and
findings in their science journals.
Following the plant investigations, Mr. Travers reviews the process of photosynthesis
and relates the process of photosynthesis as a “production system” in which ingredients
such as carbon dioxide and water produce a sugar and a by-product—oxygen. He also
reviews how the students’ findings in their investigations relate to the food-making pro-
cess. He then introduces appropriate concepts and vocabulary terms related to photosyn-
thesis, including stomata, chloroplast, chlorophyll, phloem, and xylem. To apply their
understanding of photosynthesis, students extend their investigations to new situations
by explaining how pollution from cars affects the growth rates of plants. For the unit test,
students are given an envelope containing 18 small cards, each with a word or words for
a different part of the leaf or pertaining to the process of photosynthesis. The words are
as follows:
Upper epidermis Chloroplast

Lower epidermis Chlorophyll
Palisade layer Photosynthesis
Spongy layer Autotroph
Xylem Glucose
Phloem Carbon dioxide
Vascular bundle Water
Guard cell Oxygen
Stoma Light
The purpose of the assessment is to use the cards to create a concept map showing the
interconnection of all the terms to the process of photosynthesis.
In this classroom, Mr. Travers’s role is that of a facilitator rather than dispenser of
information. In constructivist classrooms, teachers value the points of view students
bring to the lesson and alter their agenda based on the prior knowledge and preconcep-
tions of the students. In constructivist settings, emphasis is placed on the students
working in groups and internalizing the information as they develop understandings
of scientific phenomenon. Information is organized around holistic ideas and discrep-
ant events that capture the students’ interest. By using analogies and having students
raise their own questions, constructivist teachers constantly connect the students’ prior
knowledge and experiences to new knowledge and concepts.
According to Brooks and Brooks (1999), traditional and constructivist classrooms
differ in terms of the curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Constructivist and inquiry-
based science classrooms also have a distinct difference from traditional science class-
rooms. The distinctions are summarized in the chart on the next page.
Later in this chapter, you will see how constructivism has implications for teaching
and learning science as it’s revealed through an investigation using yeast. For now, how
69
Traditional Science Classrooms Constructivist Science Classrooms

•• Classroom instruction is focused on a •• Classroom instruction is focused on a
philosophy of learning where students’ minds philosophy of learning where students
are seen as “empty vessels” waiting to be negotiate knowledge by acting as theory
filled with science facts and information builders, constantly testing and modifying their
delivered by the teacher conceptual understandings
•• Curriculum and lessons are presented with •• Curriculum and lessons are presented with
emphasis on fact-based retention and basic emphasis on concept-based “big ideas,”
science process skills overarching themes, and scientific habits of
•• Instruction is centered on a teacher-led, fixed mind
curriculum •• Instruction is centered on a flexible balance
•• Daily lesson are delivered through a lecture- between teacher-led standards and student-
based, didactic approach on learning scientific led interests
facts, laws, principles, and theories •• Daily lesson are delivered through a variety of
•• Oral questions are posed by the teacher with methods, including inquiry, problem-based
a correct answer in mind learning, simulation, and role-playing
•• Daily lessons are focused on textbooks, •• Oral questions are posed by the teacher to
worksheets, and cookbook labs with a solicit and assess students’ prior
predetermined and expected outcome understandings, naive conceptions, and newly
•• Students work in groups according to abilities acquired knowledge
or skill levels as assigned by the teacher •• Daily lessons are focused on multiple
•• Assessment is seen as a validation of the textbooks, primary and online resources, and
students’ mastery and understanding of facts handheld technologies
and concepts presented in class •• Students work and frequently rotate in mixed
ability groups by teacher assignment and
student choice
•• Assessment is seen as a means of pre-
appraisal of student understandings, as well
as an opportunity for formative and summative
measures
many of the following characteristics that portray a constructivist unit of study can you
identify from the isopod investigation you read in Chapter 3?
1. Knowing how adolescents learn has a bearing on how we approach teaching and
learning.
2. Knowing educational theory gives meaning to our understanding about teaching
and learning.
3. Demonstrating that it is essential to use concrete and manipulative materials to
introduce formal concepts.
4. Starting with what the students know is an effective departure point for any sci-
ence lesson.
5. Using explorations and time to “mess around” to introduce and sequence new
knowledge, thus aligning with present learning theories.
6. Encouraging inductive and discovery learning that opens the doors to problem-
solving and higher-level thinking skills.
7. Providing challenging activities stretches students’ thinking and problem-solving
skills.
8. Using active learning encourages students to discover and construct new
knowledge.
9. Posing “What if . . .” and “I wonder . . .” questions facilitates assimilation and
accommodation.
10. Allowing students to work in groups to share and communicate knowledge
through argumentation, and to test ideas and theories against one another, makes
learning a personal and social experience.
Historical Perspectives of
Constructivism
At many science education conferences, workshops, and seminars on learning theory, one
of the most talked about topics among science educators today is constructivism.
Although the theory is not new, recent developments about how the brain works have
strengthened the constructivist model. Aspects of constructivist principles date back to
the works of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Perhaps the first recorded constructivist was
the Neapolitan philosopher Giambatista Vico, who worked in the field as early as 1710.
Have you ever posed a question to a student and heard the response, “I know it, but I just
can’t explain it”? According to most constructivists, we know something only when we
can explain it.
We begin our look at the process of learning by turning our attention to epistemology—
the structure and origin of knowledge. We must first understand how knowledge is
engendered to appreciate the potential of inquiry and argumentation as a means of attain-
ing and negotiating conceptual meaning through scientific investigations. By first devel-
oping a sound understanding about how high school students learn science, we take a
quantum leap into the practice and implementation of inquiry as a constructivist-based
teaching strategy.
The latter half of the 20th century produced an interest in understanding cognitive
psychology and metacognition. During this century, recent advances in medicine and
research have opened the door to understanding how the brain works in attaining new
knowledge. The latest generation of theorists argues that learning develops within mul-
tiple structures of the brain. This new era has affixed merit to the theory of constructiv-
ism. Next, we will examine the research and philosophy of several cognitive scientists.
John Dewey
John Dewey (1859–1952) is considered one of the twentieth century’s most influential
educational reformers and was one of the first modern American constructivists. From his
research at the University of Chicago, Dewey (1900, 1902, 1916) believed that learning and
experience go hand in hand and that knowledge emerges from a personal interaction
between the learner and the external environment. He felt that posing problems of sig-
nificant interest that draw upon the student’s prior knowledge activates the learning
process. Dewey felt that teaching should be an active process, including solving problems
that interest students. He believed that problems posed to pupils too often involved the
interests of the teacher rather than the interests of the students. Dewey’s model for learn-
ing also incorporates the student’s prior knowledge. He insisted that subject matter
requires relevance to the learner. His teachings have also had a profound influence on
environmental and outdoor education. Therefore, many inquiry science teachers align
themselves to Deweyian philosophy.
71
Jean Piaget
Another influential 20th-century constructivist was Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget
(1896–1980). Piaget began his career as a scientist studying bivalve mollusks. Later, while
working at the Binet Institute in the early 1920s translating intelligence tests from English
to French, he became interested in the mistakes children made on IQ tests. Unlike his
predecessors who studied behavior through animals, Piaget concentrated his research on
studying humans. Unfortunately, because his research was written in French, much of his
work did not catch the attention of American cognitivists until the 1960s. Like Dewey,
Piaget (1970) believed that knowledge is not “out there” somewhere, waiting to be dis-
covered, but rather is a result of an interaction between the learner and the people or
objects within the environment. Piaget was one of the first psychologists to shift the locus
of learning from a behavioral aspect to a cognitive one. Piaget theorized that cognitive
structures, called schemas, were the mental models that form by “acting on an object” and
that schemas represent our ability to interpret incoming information. These schemas, in a
sense, act as filters to assimilate new ideas. Unfortunately, one’s mental models or sche-
mas also can be a result of misinformation, resulting in presently held naive beliefs or
misconceptions. We will address the significance of misconceptions and how they affect
learning later in this chapter.
Piaget used the term operations to describe the way a child internalizes its interaction with
the environment. The following is a brief summary of Piaget’s four developmental stages:
Sensorimotor (birth–2 years): At this stage, the child learns to adapt to its environment
and coordinate its motor actions through trial and error. Toward the end of this stage, the
child begins to develop and use language to communicate needs and feelings.
Preoperational (2–7 years): At this stage, the child begins to become aware of its own
actions through thinking. The child also develops the ability to plan solutions and actions
to solve problems. Logic and contradictions are not yet part of the child’s thinking.
Concrete Operational (7–11 years): At this age, the preadolescent begins to develop the
ability to think logically. Preadolescents can now perform many science process skills
such as measuring, classifying, predicting, inferring, hypothesizing, and controlling
variables. The preadolescent can also organize objects into sequences based on patterns
and can explain the significance of the patterns to others. The student at this age can think
about and apply reason to problems that involve using manipulative and concrete objects.
At this point, however, little abstract thinking is experienced.
Formal Operational (12 years and older): At this stage, the adolescent is able to think and
to perform operations logically and abstractly. When faced with cause and effect
relationships, the student can understand the interaction without the use of manipulative
or concrete objects. At this stage, thinking goes beyond actual personal experience, and
reasoning about ideas not experienced can usually be understood.
In contrasting students at the levels of concrete and formal operations, Driscoll (1994)
says that
Inhelder and Piaget (1958) presented children and adolescents with a chemistry
problem, in which they were to mix clear liquid chemicals from four beakers until
they achieved a yellow color. Concrete operational children were rather random
in their approach to the problem, sometimes repeating combinations of chemicals

they had tried before. In addition, they typically combined only two chemicals at
a time, or all four, without considering combinations of three. By contrast, formal
operational adolescents generated a systematic plan of testing chemical combina-
tions until they found the solution. Moreover, they kept records of their tests and
generated appropriate observations concerning their results. (p. 178)
Piaget believed that although they progress at different rates, all humans go through
these same four stages in mental development. Psychologists studying Piaget would
later explain that the stages are not discrete and separate but continuous, as humans
often display behaviors characteristic of the gray areas between the stages. Critics of
Piaget’s findings would also argue that children can manifest characteristics of more
than one stage and that, at times, they may temporarily regress from one level to
another.
Hester (1994) states that these formal operations (often seen in high school students)
represent a new level of abstraction, of thinking about the possible as well as the
actual, of making predictions, forming hypotheses, and thinking scientifically,
which sets the adolescent apart from the child with his or her dependence on
purely concrete objects and referents for thinking. (p. 155)
Although Piaget’s research identified age 11 as the point at which children begin to
move into formal levels of thinking, high school teachers know that many of their stu-
dents still operate at a concrete level. As high school teachers use inquiry and argumenta-
tion strategies and provide opportunities for students to test their assumptions, describe
relationships and patterns, justify and defend their claims, and use scientific reasoning,
they propel the cognitive vehicles for students to make the transition from concrete to
formal cognitive levels. However, during this transitional phase, preadolescents can dem-
onstrate inconsistent reasoning and thought patterns concerning abstractions by showing
illogical or flawed evidence for their assertions.
What does Piaget’s theory mean to high school science teachers? It means that every
day, high school science teachers open their doors to students who may exhibit either
concrete or formal operational behaviors, or both. By understanding Piaget’s stages of
cognitive development and being aware that students progress from concrete to formal
operations during their middle and high school grades, high school science teachers can
ease and accommodate the transition from one stage to another by providing a concrete,
hands-on, and motivational experience before introducing a new, formal or abstract con-
cept. By sequencing a lesson or unit of study from a hands-on mode to a lecture mode,
rather than the other way around, teachers provide a lesson in a sequence compatible
with the student’s cognitive development. This may seem, at first, counterproductive to
a high school science teacher’s normal practice because most science teachers introduce a
new concept by providing background information and preteaching vocabulary terms
before doing a hands-on lab. By using a constructivist approach to lesson design, science
teachers can plan a lesson or a unit that first engages the learner by providing a hands-on
exploration or initial motivational discrepant event or quick lab, then explaining the con-
cept, and finally extending the concept into an inquiry investigation or full laboratory
experience. It takes time for high school science teachers to feel comfortable with this new
notion of constructivist lesson design. After all, most of us were taught by high school and
college teachers who lectured first and then gave us the hands-on experience later. This
73
constructivist lesson format is called the 5E Learning Cycle and will be introduced later
in the chapter.
Although Piaget’s theory was never intended specifically for academic teaching, it
holds a special interest for science teachers. In studying the transition that secondary
school students make from concrete to formal operations, inquiry-based teachers under-
stand that students need to explore a new concept through exploratory experiences
before being introduced to the terminology and vocabulary associated with the concept.
Introducing hands-on inquiry investigations first and saving the introduction of termi-
nology and vocabulary development for later allows high school students to first engage
in new experiences, test their theories and assumptions against their peers, and make
meaning of their newly acquired knowledge before being introduced to new vocabulary
terms. For non-inquiry teachers this seems like heresy, since many traditional teachers
believe they first need to pre-teach vocabulary terms at the beginning of a lesson.
The transformation of previously held conceptions to newly held conceptions is what
Piaget called adaptation. According to Piaget, the process of adaptation occurs through
assimilation and accommodation. Assimilation involves making use of new information
and transforming new knowledge to fit existing schemas and mental models. In accom-
modation, mental models are altered, modified, or changed to accept or fit the newly
perceived knowledge. Adaptation occurs when individuals encounter phenomena that
are contrary to their presently held understandings. They judge the new events and make
adjustments in their cognitive structures to accommodate the new situations. This results
in the adaptation of new learning. In most cases, assimilation and accommodation func-
tion simultaneously. Piaget refers to this as equilibrium. That is, the individual is self-
regulating his or her understanding and maintaining stability. At equilibrium, we are at
ease with our presently held notions.
Disequilibrium, on the other hand, occurs when one experiences a new phenomenon
that does not neatly fit into his or her presently held schemas or models. Piaget called this
cognitive conflict or cognitive dissonance. Causing disequilibrium and cognitive conflict
is not all destructive. Often, constructivist teachers instill degrees of disequilibrium to
cause individuals to give up misconceptions or undergo cognitive change.
Constructivists believe that when a new event doesn’t fit an individual’s presently
held belief system, it can possibly be discarded because it doesn’t fit with the person’s
cognitive model of understanding. Assimilation, accommodation, and disequilibrium are
the basis for constructivist thinking, with conceptual change constantly at work.
According to Piaget, for conceptual change to occur, the individual must be faced with
new conceptions that are inconsistent with his or her presently held beliefs. The indi-
vidual must also acknowledge dissatisfaction with his or her present schema and accept
the plausibility of the new concept, thus substituting the new concept for the previously
held one. There will be more about this topic in the upcoming sections.
Thus, Piaget’s theory has four key principles:
1. People develop through “stages” of cognitive growth.

2. Knowledge is a result of ever-changing social interactions between the individual
and the environment.
3. Knowledge is constantly being constructed and reconstructed from previous and
new experiences.
4. Cognitive growth is self-regulating within the individual and between the indi-
vidual and the interaction with the physical and social environment.
Lev Semenovich Vygotsky

Russian psychologist Lev S. Vygotsky was born near Minsk in western Russia in 1896,
the same year as Jean Piaget. He received a law degree in 1917 from Moscow University
but later turned his attention to medicine and psychology, with a specific focus on learn-
ing disabilities. With the prevailing behaviorist notion that animal behavior can be
applied to understand how humans learn, Vygotsky (1979) contrasted animal and human
behavior by describing the abilities of humans as uniquely specific to the species.
Vygotsky’s theories on cognitive development were unique from those of his contempo-
raries, and although many of his theories on teaching and learning were never backed up
with empirical data because of his early death in 1934, researchers recently have expanded
on his theories and framework on preschool and early childhood education, applying
them to innovation in teaching at all grade levels K−12.
Vygotsky made a significant contribution to cognitive development and the theory of
constructivism by writing frantically for the last 3 years before his death from tuberculo-
sis at the age of 37. Most of his writings were still incomplete at the time of his death and
weren’t translated into English until the early 1960s. His work Thought and Language
(1934/1962) did not capture the attention of Western constructivists until its translation
in 1962. Vygotsky and Piaget shared similar thoughts on constructivism; however,
Vygotsky was not concerned with identifying stages of mental development. He explored
the influence of language and social processes on cognitive development, as well as the
accomplishments a child could achieve when solving a problem alone as compared to
accomplishments achieved with assistance from an adult.
Two basic principles from the Vygotskian framework include the role language plays
in mental development and the importance of social interaction within the context of
learning. Whereas Piaget’s theory about learning focused mainly on the interaction with
physical objects, Vygotsky believed that the construction of knowledge is predicated on
manipulation but additionally is socially mediated. In his work, Vygotsky emphasized
the importance of social interaction between the learner and his or her peers; thus, he was
labeled as a “social constructivist.” According to Vygotsky (1978), an “important factor in
social learning was the young person’s ability to learn by imitating and modeling.
Interacting with adults and peers in cooperative settings gave young children ample
opportunity to observe, imitate, and model” (pp. 79–80).
One of his foremost known theories is the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD).
According to Vygotsky, students’ ability and skills to solve problems or tasks can be cat-
egorized into two levels:
1. Skills the student possesses to perform tasks independently

2. Skills the student lacks (at an independent level) so that tasks can be performed
only with assistance from another student or adult
The independent level is a lower or minimum level of performance where students

can operate unassisted. The assisted level is a higher or maximum level where children
can reach a more complex performance with the help or assistance from another. The
zone is an arbitrary continuum or area between these two levels. Most traditional
teaching is focused more closely on what students can achieve independently, but a con-
structivist teacher teaches to the upper zone by providing assistance to students’ perfor-
mance through prompts, leading questions, hints and clues, or asking students to clarify
their thoughts about the phenomenon being studied. Although this interaction can be
75
interpreted as an “expert-novice” relationship, Vygotsky believed that all students could

enhance their learning through social mediation with peers or an adult.
One instructional strategy based upon the idea of the ZPD is “scaffolding,” a meta-
phor for building construction. Scaffolding provides a level of support that enables the
learner to accomplish a task that, normally, is beyond his or her current capabilities. In
scaffolding situations, the teacher purposefully and intentionally designs a performance
task just beyond the independent level. Providing guidance at first, the teacher then
gradually decreases the assistance until the student can take more responsibility for com-
pleting the task. Vygotsky suggests that teachers provide problems and tasks just beyond
the student’s present capabilities; through cooperative learning groups and modeling
from adults, the student is scaffolded to high levels of thinking and performance.
To provide an example of scaffolding, I’ll use the day I taught my daughter, Janice, to
ride a two-wheeled bike. She was the only one in her 4th-grade class who wasn’t riding
a bike without training wheels. That was enough of an incentive for Janice to ask me for
help. We got the bike out of the garage and headed for the street. At first, she practiced
balancing on the bike without the training wheels while I held the bike upright. Next, we
moved on to short spurts where Janice pedaled and I ran alongside, holding the bike
upright. With one hand on the back of the seat, I held the bike while she pedaled down
the street. I can still recall her saying, “Daddy, don’t let me go!” Well, what she didn’t
know, as I ran alongside the bike for what seemed an eternity, was that I was sporadically
letting go of the bicycle seat, allowing Janice to ride on her own. “I’ve got you,” I said.
“Just keep pedaling!” Nearly out of breath, she began to gain confidence in balancing
without assistance. After a few spills and some scraped knees, she gained more confi-
dence and achieved the goal of riding the bike on her own.
In many ways, good constructivist teachers teach in the same way. They are consciously
aware of the prompts and assistance they need to provide to have their students achieve at
higher levels of academic performance. Constructivist and inquiry-based teachers do not
make the task easier; rather, they provide the appropriate level of support and assistance
for students to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills in science. Constructivist and
inquiry-based teachers are also constantly aware of shifting the onus of responsibility from
the teacher to the student, enabling the student to become a more independent learner.
Sometimes unknowingly, high school teachers use Vygotskian principles by implementing
guided, semi-guided, and independent approaches to providing tasks to students. The
teacher begins by providing a mental challenge task to the student. With help from the
teacher or a peer, the student is guided to the solution and begins to understand the nature
of the concept. With the second problem, the student is provided a semi-guided practice to
gain confidence and control over the task. Presented with a third problem, the student
functions independently at solving the task. The teacher models appropriate behaviors and
assists students in working at levels that stretch their imagination, thinking, and abilities.
As the communication exchanges between the student and the teacher continue, the
student begins to construct and mediate an understanding of the topic.
Constructivism Today
Constructivism today is having an increasingly significant impact on educational reform
and more frequently is viewed as the prevailing theory of how individuals learn, espe-
cially preadolescents and adolescents at the high school level. Currently, the majority of
K−12 exemplary teachers, leaders, and reformers in science education carry the constructivist
torch for innovation in teaching and learning science. Those interested in learning more
about constructivism and its implications to inquiry and argument-based teaching are
encouraged to see the readings listed in Resource A.
In summary, key points in constructivism include the following:
1. The senses are conduits to assimilating new knowledge.

2. The learner’s existing or presently held understandings determine what new situ-
ations are accepted or ignored.
3. The learner’s existing or presently held understandings determine how new situa-
tions are interpreted.
4. Knowledge is not transmitted from one individual to another. Communication is
transmitted, but communication or incoming information is not knowledge.
Knowledge is constructed in the mind by the learner attempting to make linkages
between new and previously stored knowledge within the brain.
5. The learner uses linkages to construct new understandings.
6. The learner’s understanding is constantly undergoing construction and reconstruction.
7. Learning is both personally (reflection) and socially constructed (testing one’s
model against peers).
8. Inquiry is a viable teaching strategy for testing the degree of fit between one’s pres-
ently held theories and the scientific explanations of how the world actually seems
to be.
Metacognition
It seems appropriate at this point to present a concept that underlies basic constructivism
and inquiry philosophy—metacognition. Metacognition is a term many science teachers
might have heard but seldom use in their everyday language. It is, however, a concept that
is fundamental to what we do and say as inquiry- and argument-based science teachers.
Metacognition refers to the awareness and regulation of one’s own learning process.
It encompasses an internal conversation or reflective perspective in which an individ-
ual examines his or her own thinking and learning. Metacognition is of special interest
to inquiry- and argument-based teachers because it focuses the responsibility of learn-
ing on the learner and the linkage of previously held notions to new information and
understandings. According to the National Research Council (2000b), “A metacognitive
approach to instruction can help students learn to take control of their learning by
defining learning goals and monitoring their progress to achieve them” (p. 18). The
NRC goes on to state, “Children can be taught strategies, including the ability to predict
outcomes, explain to oneself in order to improve understanding, note failures to com-
prehend, activate background knowledge, plan ahead, and apportion time and mem-
ory” (NRC, 2000b, p. 18).
Metacognition strategies can be promoted and implemented in the high school
science classroom by providing time for students to engage in self-reflection and to make
additions, corrections, and revisions to their work. These strategies are successful in help-
ing students use previously known information and transfer it to new situations. Problem
solving, when anchored with effective and strategic questioning strategies, also serves as
77
a vehicle for fostering metacognition and critical thinking. Other metacognitive strategies
include the use of concept maps (Novak, 1990, 1998). Concept maps serve as vehicles that
illustrate the hierarchical connections among related entities in all areas of science. By
using concept maps, high school students practice organizational skills and develop rela-
tionship patterns. Concept maps are also excellent tools for self-assessment.
Collaboration and reflection, two key components of metacognition, often are facili-
tated during the inquiry process through cooperative learning groups and students using
journals to record their thoughts and ideas during the course of a scientific investigation.
As an encouraging note to teachers, findings suggest that metacognitive skills can be
taught to students regardless of their innate ability and result in higher achievement
(Baird, Fensham, Gunstone, & White, 1989; Nolan, 1991; Novak & Gowin, 1989).
Developing a classroom culture of inquiry and argumentation provides an excellent
opportunity for teachers to engage students in scientific reasoning, decision making, and
reflection—all important aspects of metacognition.
How Adolescents Learn

Have you ever heard a teacher say, “Those kids’ minds are just like sponges soaking up
knowledge?” Although some educators frequently describe an adolescent’s learning from
a behaviorist/objectivist perspective, constructivist teachers view learning quite differ-
ently. Constructivists perceive learning as a process by which the student is a “theory
builder.” In constructivist philosophy, one believes that knowledge is not imparted, accu-
mulated, absorbed, or transmitted from one individual to another, the sender to the
receiver. Rather, knowledge and meaning is constantly being assimilated and accommo-
dated in the mind of cognizant beings through interpretations of their experiences and
from the communication of language with others.
Prior Knowledge
Adolescents bring many levels of scientific understanding to our high school class-
rooms. This can be simultaneously necessary and problematic. On one hand, their prior
knowledge, along with their presently held models and theories, shapes how they inter-
pret the natural world and new scientific information; on the other hand, prior knowl-
edge, in the form of misconceptions, can mask the way information is interpreted and
lead to further misunderstandings.
David Ausubel (1968) once said, “The most important single factor influencing learn-
ing is what the learner already knows; ascertain this and teach him accordingly” (p. vi).
But how, you might ask, can I get inside the heads of 28 high school students to assess
their prior knowledge? Before beginning a lesson on evolution, sedimentary rocks,
organic chemistry, or quantum physics, consider trying a few strategies to assess their
pre-understandings. Students’ prior knowledge can be ascertained simply by asking,
“What do you know about [a particular subject]?” Tell students to write down on a paper
whatever they know about the subject you are about to introduce. They can make a list,
write a short paragraph, construct a concept map, draw a picture, or use any method that
is most convenient for them. After a few minutes, pair each student with a partner to
share what each recorded. Tell them that they each get a minute to share what they wrote
with their partner. Next, tell them to compare their statements and look for similarities
and differences. After another 2 minutes, you can ask individual students to share their
statements with the entire class while you record their comments on the board or
overhead, making a list or a concept map. Review their presently held conceptions and,
to yourself, make mental notes of any glaring misconceptions that need to be addressed
later in the unit.
Usually, simply going around the room and listening to student conversations is a
productive way to assess students’ present understandings. As you visit each group of
students, be especially attentive to inconsistencies in their thoughts and conversations.
Another strategy for assessing students’ prior knowledge involves conducting mis-
conception interviews. Pose a question or provide a task to three students at random a
few days before starting a new unit. Have the students think aloud and verbalize their
understandings as they perform the task. Again, listen attentively for any misconceptions
or naive conceptions they raise during the interview. If misconceptions arise during the
interview, anticipate that other students may have similar conceptions. This will allow
you to adjust and plan your lessons accordingly.
Other preassessment strategies include giving a simple pretest or using a case study
discussion to elicit prior knowledge. Teachers also can give students small cards, each
containing a vocabulary word that will be used in the upcoming unit. Have students
arrange the cards to make a concept map. Tell them to write linking words that connect
one card to another.
Understanding the prior conceptions of every student in your class is nearly impos-
sible, but by using these suggestions, teachers can anticipate many or most naive concep-
tions and start a lesson from the students’ point of view.
Misconceptions
Everyone has a set of beliefs, conceptions, and understandings. They are part of the
models and theories we hold to make sense of the world around us. Duit and Treagust
(1995) suggest that
at all ages students hold conceptions about many phenomena and concepts before
they are presented in the science class. These conceptions stem from and are
deeply rooted in daily experiences because they have proved to be helpful and
valuable in daily life. (p. 47)
These conceptions that students hold are sometimes grounded in scientific truth and
other times are conceived through intuitive, yet incorrect, assumptions. Educators and
cognitive psychologists often refer to these incorrect models as misconceptions, but
because the conceptions are conceived from what the students believe to be reality, more
appropriate terms may be naive conceptions, preconceptions, alternative conceptions, or
intuitive conceptions.
Preconceptions play a major role in how students interpret new incoming informa-
tion. Consider the case of an 11th-grade general physics class. Ms. Nolan is introducing
the concept of pendulums and poses the question, “What affects the number of swings a
pendulum will make in 30 seconds?” Let’s listen as Ms. Nolan works with two students,
Christy and Kara.
Ms. Nolan: Ladies, what factors do you think affect the number of swings a pendulum
makes?
Christy: I think it’s the weight at the end of the string.
79
Kara: Yeah, that sounds good. It’s the weight.

Ms. Nolan: What makes you think that?
Kara: Because when you swing on a swing, some people can go higher than others.
So . . . (pause) . . . your weight can affect how high you swing.
Christy: I remember swinging my sister. She couldn’t go as high as I could because,
I guess, I weigh more. That sounds right.
Kara: I think I remember talking about this in Mr. Farrell’s science class in the 8th
grade.
Ms. Nolan: Now, make a hypothesis about how the weight, but let’s call it the mass—
how the mass affects the number of swings the pendulum makes.
Kara: The more mass, the more swings the pendulum will make.
Ms. Nolan: All right, how could you design an investigation to test that hypothesis?
Christy: We would have to set up the pendulum and tie a paper clip to the end of
the string. Then we could open up the paper clip to form an “S” hook and
add different amounts of washers to the paper clip. We could start with one
washer and keep adding a washer until we had five washers on the hook.
Ms. Nolan: Good! How far will you pull back the washers before releasing them?
Kara: I’d say we should pull the washers back halfway, to a 45-degree angle.
Ms. Nolan: Will you change the angle of release?
Kara: No, that will be the same for each trial.
Ms. Nolan: And how many trials will you do?
Christy: One?
Kara: No, I think we should do three and then take the average.
Christy: Yeah, three sounds good.
Ms. Nolan: Now what about the length of the string. Will that change?
Kara: No, that will remain the same for all the trials.
Ms. Nolan: Why is that?
Kara: We can have only one variable to affect the outcome of the experiment.
Ms. Nolan: And what’s that?
Christy: The number of washers.
Kara: Actually, it’s the mass.
Ms. Nolan: Very good. Nice job! Now set up your experiment, and call me over when
you have your data.
(Ten minutes later, Christy calls Ms. Nolan over to their table.)
Ms. Nolan: Well, what did you find out?

Christy: I think our calculations are wrong. We got the same number of swings for
all three trials and with all the different washers.
Kara: We must have made a mistake somewhere. We got 12 swings for all the tri-
als and washers. What did we do wrong?
Ms. Nolan: Did you time the number of swings the same for all the trials?
Kara: Yeah, we used 10 seconds for each time.
Christy: Something is wrong with our data.
Ms. Nolan: What is the relationship between the mass and the number of swings?
Christy: According to our data, the mass had no effect on the number of swings the
pendulum made.
Kara: Is our hypothesis wrong?
Christy: No, something is wrong with our data. Let’s do it all over again.
Ms. Nolan: Well, before you do the experiment all over again, what else might affect the
number of swings the pendulum makes?
Kara: I’m not sure.
Ms. Nolan: Could it be how far you pull back and release the washers?
Christy: That might be it, but I still think something is wrong with our data.
Ms. Nolan: Try to test the effect of the release point on the number of swings the pen-
dulum makes. Design an investigation to test the release point, and call me
back when you’re done. Be sure to write a hypothesis first before actually
carrying out your procedure.
(Ten minutes later, Christy again calls Ms. Nolan over to their table.)
Christy: I don’t believe this. We keep getting the same number of swings each time.
Kara: We got 12 swings, the same as before.
Ms. Nolan: Wait a minute. Are you saying you changed the mass and it had no effect,
then you changed the release point and that still had no effect?
Kara: Yup.
Christy: This is very confusing. I don’t know what’s going on. Something’s fishy!
Ms. Nolan: Okay, let’s make sense of this. You tried the mass and it had no effect. Then
you tried the release point and it still had no effect. What else can you try?
Christy: I don’t know. Something is really fishy here.
Kara: What about the length of string? Can we try that?
Ms. Nolan: Okay, that’s a good idea. Go back and design a new investigation to see if
the length of the string affects the number of swings the pendulum makes.
What variable will you change?
Kara: The length of string.
Ms. Nolan: What will remain constant in your experiment?
Christy: The number of washers and the release point?
Ms. Nolan: Great! You got it!
(Ten minutes later, Christy calls Ms. Nolan over to their table.)
81
Kara: I think we got it. When we changed the length of string, it changed the
number of swings the pendulum made. The shorter the string, the more
swings. The longer the string, the fewer swings it made.
Christy: That’s weird. I thought it was going to be the mass, not the length of the
string that affected the number of swings.
Ms. Nolan: Where did you get your original idea?
Christy: I don’t know. I guess it was from watching kids play on the playground
swing. It just seemed normal to say that the mass would make a difference.
So our calculations weren’t wrong. It really was the length of the string.
Ms. Nolan: Now, when you came into the lab this morning, what did you think affected
the swing of the pendulum?
Christy: I thought it was the weight or mass.
Kara: Me too!
Ms. Nolan: What do you think now?
Christy: It’s definitely the length of the string, not the mass.
Ms. Nolan: Did you give up on your “mass theory”?
Kara: I know I did.
Christy: We both did.
Ms. Nolan: Now, let me ask you one more question. In the beginning of the lab, if I told
you that the mass did not affect the swing of the pendulum, but it was the
length of the string, would you believe me?
Kara: I don’t think so.
Ms. Nolan: Why not?
Christy: We had to do it ourselves. We had to actually test it to change our minds.
Ms. Nolan: Great job today!
The case of the swinging pendulum reminds us that rote learning does not usually
facilitate change in conceptual understandings, especially when the misconception is
deeply held. Did you notice that Kara read about pendulums in the 8th grade? Keep in
mind that misconceptions can be stubborn. In this case, Christy and Kara held, probably
for 15 years, the naive conception that the mass affected the number of swings. The
authority of a teacher is not often strong enough to change students’ previously held
conceptions and make accommodations in their cognitive structures. Combining a con-
structivist approach using both hands-on and minds-on strategies does have that strength.
Conceptual Change Theory

Now let’s reflect on what we read about cognitive learning theory and apply it to the case
of the pendulums. According to Piaget (1970), people form networks or schemas within
the brain to store information. Both Kara’s and Christy’s prior experience on the play-
ground helped them to believe that mass affects the swing of the pendulum. All incoming
information is now translated through the student’s schema. When a new situation arises
that is inconsistent with a child’s present schema (such as the data from the mass experi-
ment), the student may either disregard the new information because it doesn’t fit with
the presently held notion, or he or she may change or give up the previously held notion
and accept a new notion based on new evidence. Driscoll (1994) points out that question-
ing one’s beliefs and prior conceptions can be threatening to students and lead to defen-
sive moves. In this case, Ms. Nolan was very careful not to ridicule their previously held
models, but instead she effectively posed questions and prompts to lead Christy and Kara
to a new level of understanding.
When a child accepts a new model, it is probably more useful, makes more sense, or
is more plausible than the previously held model. Keep in mind that children, adoles-
cents, and even adults often are reluctant to give up their presently held models and
misconceptions despite what their teachers or friends tell them. As you read before, mis-
conceptions are stubborn and sometimes very resistant to change. As a teacher once said,
“Be careful what you put into a student’s head; chances are, once it’s in, it may never
come out.”
Conceptual change is an integral part of the learning process. Given a new situation,
it is the individual learner who must recognize his or her present conception about the
observed phenomenon, evaluate the conception in light of other explanations and possi-
bilities, and then decide whether to retain the present conception or reconstruct the con-
ception based upon the plausibility of the new experience.
High school students often test their theories and models through interactions with
their peers, one of the most influential aspects of their lives. When their observations and
experiences continue to match their presently held theories and those of their peers,
the experiences are assimilated, and the model is reinforced. When their observations and
experiences do not match their presently held theories, either the experience can be
discounted because it doesn’t align with their understanding, or the model can be accom-
modated by a conceptual change to include this new experience. Adolescents then con-
tinue to test their ideas, beliefs, and models through ongoing observations. Assimilation
is the filtering and integration of stimuli, concepts, and external elements within the
context of existing knowledge and schema, whereas accommodation is the modification
and adjustment of cognitive structures to new situations. Working together, states of
assimilation and accommodation result in cognitive equilibrium and the conceptual
change theory.
Posner, Strike, Hewson, and Gertzog (1982) suggest that individuals will undergo a
conceptual change when the following conditions exist:
1. They must become dissatisfied with their existing conceptions.

2. The scientific conception must be intelligible.
3. The scientific conception must be plausible.
4. The scientific conception must be useful in a variety of new situations.
Think about the last time you changed your mind about something. What caused
you to change your mind? Which of the above conditions facilitated the conceptual
change process? How was your previously held conception different from the newly
held conception?
The history of science is a story with theories and models that are continually tested,
refined, and changed over time. This is often orchestrated through the practice of scien-
tific argumentation and reiterates the importance of having students well versed in the
83
language of argumentation. Youngson (1998) tells us that getting it wrong is often the way
science advances. According to Youngson, “We are prisoners of our own experience”
(p. 2). Consider Ptolemy, who placed Earth in the center of the solar system, or Lamarck,
who proposed a theory of evolution based on the length of the giraffe’s long neck. Do you
remember the hoopla and fiasco about cold fusion? Yet probably no other theory has
changed as much as that of the structure of the atom. In words that have been attributed
to Thomas Huxley (1899), “The great tragedy of science—the slaying of a beautiful
hypothesis by an ugly fact.”
Making Sense of Language

If we were to think that knowledge is imparted solely through language between
teacher and students, why do teachers often find themselves teaching a concept one day
and discovering the next day that the students just did not “get it”? If my teaching phi-
losophy was based upon assumptive learning, I might assume that learning occurs
because the students are listening to me, the teacher. But just because students are lis-
tening to me does not mean that they are always making sense of the words coming out
of my mouth. Words and language are sensory inputs that the learner must act upon to
construct meaning.
Consider the case of a biology class just beginning a unit on the parts of the cell. On
the first day of the unit, Mrs. Bell introduces the various cell organelles by writing their
names and functions on the board. As students are copying notes, she is spelling out
words and phrases such as mitochondria, ribosome, endoplasmic reticulum, Golgi bod-
ies, and nuclear membrane. The words are part of the sender’s (the teacher’s) everyday
language and experience, but not part of the receivers’ (the students’). In this case, the
terms make perfect sense to the teacher but may not mean anything at this point to the
students. Thus, language is an important aspect of learning in a constructivist approach.
The student needs a language connection, based upon his or her previous experience, to
make sense of what is currently being said. We can see in the organelle lesson that the
teacher had the cognitive structure (schema) to make sense of these terms. In the case of
students without the cognitive structure to make sense of these terms, the words enter the
brain through the ear, look for connections, and, finding none, get filtered out. Students
are left with puzzled looks on their faces.
The 5E Learning Cycle

There are several implications to the constructivist learning model. The 5E Learning Cycle
is one of them. Like constructivism, the 5E Learning Cycle is not new. It was originally
proposed for elementary school science programs in the early 1960s by J. Myron Atkin
and Robert Karplus (1962) and further documented by Lawson, Abraham, and Renner
(1989), Beisenherz and Dantonio (1996), Marek and Cavallo (1997), Bybee (1997), Abraham
(1997), and Colburn and Clough (1997). In the last 20 years, however, it has become a
popular model for high school teachers too. Many articles in The American Biology Teacher
refer to the learning cycle approach as an effective lesson format. In addition, the
Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS), a premier curriculum developer in the area
of biology, uses the 5E format for its instructional model. Unlike traditional three-step
lesson plans in science that begin with introducing new vocabulary, then provide a
step-by-step lab to verify the information presented, and finally finish with an end-of-
chapter problem or test, the 5E Learning Cycle model (see Figure 5.1) is a constructivist
teaching strategy that includes five stages consistent with cognitive theories of how
learning occurs:
1. Engagement 4. Elaboration or Extension

2. Exploration 5. Evaluation
3. Explanation
Figure 5.1 The Learning Cycle
Engage
The
Evaluate Learning Explore
Cycle
Elaborate
Explain
or Extend
During the Engagement stage, the teacher sets the stage for learning. This is accom-
plished by stating the purpose of the lesson. Often, the teacher introduces the topic of the
lesson and states the expectations for learning by explaining what students should know
and be able to do by the end of the lesson or unit. The Engagement phase is also a means
of getting the students’ attention and focus. By using attention-grabbing demonstrated
inquiries and discrepant events, the teacher creates ways to “hook” students into learn-
ing. Discrepant events generate interest and curiosity that set the stage for inquiring
about a particular phenomenon. Discrepant events serve to create cognitive dissonance—
or, in Piaget’s words, disequilibrium—because the observation of such events does not
readily assimilate into the students’ presently held understanding. Because the observa-
tions made from discrepant events are counterintuitive to the students’ prior experience,
the students quickly activate questions.
From a constructivist perspective, the Engagement phase also provides an opportu-
nity for the teacher to activate learning, assess prior knowledge, and have students share
their prior experiences about the topic. During the Engagement stage, the teacher can
note possible naive conceptions or misconceptions stated by the students. These miscon-
ceptions can be addressed during and after the students have an opportunity to work
through the Exploration and Explanation stages. It should be noted that it is nearly
impossible for any teacher to fully ascertain all the misconceptions held by all the
85
students. The learning cycle, specifically the Engagement stage, does, however, provide
the teacher with a means of assessing students’ current beliefs and understandings.
The Exploration stage is an excellent place to engage high school students in inquiry-
based labs or guided inquiries. During the Exploration stage, students raise questions,
develop hypotheses to test, and work without direct instruction from the teacher. They go
about collecting evidence and data, recording and organizing information, sharing obser-
vations, and working in cooperative groups. The Exploration stage allows students to
build on a common experience as they carry out their investigations. This common expe-
rience or exploration is essential because students will enter the classroom with different
levels of experience and knowledge about the topic being studied. The Exploration stage
allows all students to experience hands-on learning and helps level the playing field
within a culturally diverse classroom. The Exploration stage also provides opportunities
for students with diverse experiences to share their different understandings and broaden
the perspective of the entire class. In terms of Piaget, it also scaffolds the student from a
concrete, hands-on experience to a formal, minds-on experience coming up next in the
Explanation stage.
During the teacher-directed Explanation stage, the teacher facilitates data- and
evidence-processing techniques for the individual groups or entire class (depending on
the nature of the investigation) from the information collected during the exploration.
Information is discussed and analyzed, and the teacher often explains the scientific con-
cepts associated with the exploration by providing a common language for the class to
use. This common (or scientific) language helps students articulate their thinking and
describe their investigations and experiences in scientific terms. The teacher can continue
to introduce details, vocabulary terms, and definitions to the lesson as students assimilate
their understanding against the scientific explanation. This can be accomplished by using
direct instruction/lecturing, audiovisual resources, online sources, and computer soft-
ware programs. Here, the teacher uses the students’ prior experiences to explain the con-
cepts and attempts to address misconceptions uncovered during the Engagement or
Exploration stages. The Explanation stage is sometimes called the “Concept Development”
stage because evidence and newly developed concepts are assimilated into the cognitive
structure of the student. During the Explanation stage, students may work to assimilate
or accommodate new information as they make sense of their understanding, construct-
ing new meaning from their experience and conceptual change.
During the Elaboration or Extension stage, the teacher helps reinforce the concept by
extending and applying the evidence to new and real-world situations outside the class-
room. This stage also facilitates the construction of valid generalizations by the students,
who also may modify their presently held understandings of the phenomena being stud-
ied. During the Elaboration stage, teachers often provide continual investigations in the
form of guided and self-directed inquiries. These more open-ended investigations aug-
ment greater student ownership than the more structured inquiry presented during the
Exploration stage. The Elaboration stage is a perfect setting for scientific argumentation.
Whether using the findings from the investigation from the Exploration stage or design-
ing and conducting a whole new inquiry, teachers can use this leg of the cycle to have
students defend and justify their finding in the form of claims and supportive evidence.
During the Evaluation stage, the teacher brings closure to the lesson or unit by helping
students summarize the relationship between the variables studied in the lesson and pos-
ing higher-order questions that help them make judgments, analyses, and evaluations
about their work. Connections among the concepts just studied and other topics can be
illustrated by using a concept map. Here, the teacher can compare the prior knowledge
that was identified during the Engagement stage with the newly formed understanding
gained from the lesson.
On the assessment side, the teacher will provide a means for students to assess their
learning and make connections from prior understandings to new situations that encour-
age the application of concepts and problem-solving skills. Assessment strategies may
include monitoring charts or checklists, portfolios, rubrics, and student self-evaluations.
Later, in Chapter 8, we will address these assessment strategies.
The BSCS provides an excellent summary of the 5E Learning Cycle by indicating
descriptors for the students as well as the teachers regarding consistency with the model
(see Figures 5.2 and 5.3).
Figure 5.2 What the Student Does
What the Student Does . . .
Stage of the
Instruction Model That Is Consistent With the 5E Model That Is Inconsistent With the 5E Model
Engage Asks questions, such as, Why did this Asks for the “right” answer
happen? What do I already know about Offers the “right” answer
this? Insists on answers or explanations
Shows interest in the topic Seeks one solution
Explore Thinks freely but within the limits of the Lets others do the thinking and
activity exploring (passive involvement)
Tests predictions and hypotheses Works quietly with little or no interaction
Forms new predictions and hypotheses with others (only appropriate when
Tries alternatives and discusses them exploring ideas or feelings)
with others “Plays around” indiscriminately with
Records observations and ideas no goal in mind
Suspends judgment Stops with one solution
Explain Explains possible solutions or answers Proposes explanations from “thin air”
to others with no relationship to previous
Listens critically to others’ explanations experiences
Questions one another’s explanations Brings up irrelevant experiences and
Listens to and tries to comprehend examples
explanations the teacher offers Accepts explanations without
Refers to previous activities justification
Uses recorded observations in Does not attend to other plausible
explanations explanations
Elaborate Applies new labels, definitions, “Plays around” with no goal in mind
explanations, and skills in new but Ignores previous information or
similar situations evidence
Uses previous information to ask Draws conclusions from “thin air”
questions, propose solutions, make Uses only those labels that the teacher
decisions, and design experiments provided
Draws reasonable conclusions from
evidence
Records observations and explanations
Checks for understanding among peers
Answers open-ended questions by
using observations, evidence, and
previously accepted explanations
87
What the Student Does . . .
Stage of the
Instruction Model That Is Consistent With the 5E Model That Is Inconsistent With the 5E Model
Evaluate Demonstrates an understanding or Draws conclusions without using

knowledge of the concept or skill evidence or previously accepted
Evaluates his or her own progress and explanations
knowledge Offers only yes or no answers and
Asks related questions that would memorized definitions or explanations
encourage future investigations Fails to express satisfactory
explanations in his or her own words
Introduces new, irrelevant topics
Source: BSCS, 2011. BSCS Biology: A Human Approach (4th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt. Copyright © 2011 BSCS. All
rights reserved. Used with permission.
Figure 5.3 What the Teacher Does
What the Teacher Does
Stage of the That Is Consistent With the 5E Model That Is Inconsistent With the 5E Model
Instruction Model
Engage Creates interest Explains concepts

Generates curiosity Provides definitions and answers
Raises questions States conclusions
Elicits responses that uncover what the Provides closure
students know or think about the Lectures
concept/topic
Explore Encourages the students to work Provides answers

together without direct instruction from Tells or explains how to work through
the teacher the problem
Observes and listens to the students as Provides closure
they interact Tells the students that they are wrong
Asks probing questions to redirect the Gives information or facts that solve the
students’ investigations when problem
necessary Leads the students step-by-step to a
Provides time for students to puzzle solution
through problems
Acts as a consultant for students
Explain Encourages the students to explain Accepts explanations that have no

concepts and definitions in their own justification
words Neglects to solicit the students’
Asks for justification (evidence) and explanations
clarification from students Introduces unrelated concepts or skills
Formally provides definitions,
explanations, and new labels
Uses students’ previous experiences as
the basis for explaining concepts
(Continued)
(Continued)
What the Teacher Does
Stage of the That Is Consistent With the 5E Model That Is Inconsistent With the 5E Model
Instruction Model
Elaborate Expects the students to use formal Provides definitive answers

labels, definitions, and explanations Tells the students that they are wrong
provided previously Lectures
Encourages the students to apply or Leads students step-by-step to a
extend the concepts and skills in new solution
situations Explains how to work through the
Reminds the students of alternative problem
explanations
Refers the students to existing data and
evidence and asks, What do you
already know? Why do you think . . .?
(strategies from Explore apply here
also).
Evaluate Observes the students as they apply Tests vocabulary words, terms, and
new concepts and skills isolated facts
Assesses students’ knowledge and/or Introduces new ideas or concepts
skills Creates ambiguity
Looks for evidence that the students Promotes open-ended discussion
have changed their thinking or unrelated to the concept or skill
behaviors
Allows students to assess their own
learning and group-process skills
Asks open-ended questions, such as
Why do you think . . . ? What evidence
do you have? What do you know about
x? How would you explain x?
Source: BSCS, 2011. BSCS Biology: A Human Approach (4th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt. Copyright © 2011 BSCS. All
rights reserved. Used with permission.
Challenges to Creating a
Constructivist Classroom
An obvious question arises at this point: If constructivism has so many valid attributes to
enhance student learning, why aren’t more teachers implementing constructivist strate-
gies such as the 5E Learning Cycle in their classrooms? The answer to the question may
begin with the term constructivist strategies.
Constructivism should be viewed not as a set of teaching strategies but rather as a
theory about how learning occurs. To become a constructivist teacher, one needs to focus
on developing and sustaining a culture of constructivism within the classroom rather
than implementing a set of loosely coupled strategies or practices. According to Windschitl
(1999),
Before teachers and administrators adopt such practices, they should understand
that constructivism cannot make its appearance in the classroom as a set of
89
isolated instructional methods grafted on to otherwise traditional teaching tech-

niques. Rather, it is a culture—a set of beliefs, norms, and practices that constitute
the fabric of school life. (p. 752)
Developing a constructivist classroom culture is an arduous process. It means tak-

ing on new challenges and unfamiliar norms. This new role does not occur overnight.
Becoming a constructivist-based teacher takes years of sustained perseverance and
reflection.
There are several challenges in transforming from the behaviorist-objectivist
practices to a culture of constructivism. By examining these issues, we also question our
own beliefs and values about good teaching and learning. Our journey to a constructiv-
ist classroom culture begins with taking a risk to challenge our classroom norms and
teaching paradigm.
1. Familiarity With Pedagogy: Despite its popularity in the research and journals,
coupled with an increasing number of teachers embracing constructivist principles,
many high school science teachers are still not familiar with the concept of con-
structivism. Most science teachers are well equipped to provide hands-on and
problem-solving activities to students, but a lack of a philosophical foundation in
learning theory often prevails. Looking back to their preservice education courses,
many teachers cite the lack of constructivist role models, especially in college-level
science content courses. Too often, teachers face lecture-centered college instructors
in the science content areas who teach in a traditional, didactic format where learn-
ing is seen as externally motivated rather than internally motivated. This supports
the notion that “teachers teach as they have been taught.”
2. High-Stakes Assessments: Often the end-of-the-year, multiple-choice examination
does not accurately assess achievement of all the goals of a constructivist teacher.
With the increased emphasis on high-stakes, statewide standardized tests and the
pressure teachers face to have their students perform at high levels of achievement,
it is no wonder we hear the phrase “teaching to the test.” Constructivist educators
constantly struggle with the balance between providing specific learning opportu-
nities that best respond to the students’ prior experiences and present understand-
ings and the reality that high-stakes standardized assessments are not going away.
For constructivist teachers to align their instructional goals with assessment goals,
they need the flexibility to have students demonstrate their competencies using
forms of assessment other than paper-and-pencil, objective-type examinations.
Project-based goals, critical thinking, cooperative learning, scientific reasoning, and
problem-solving skills are not normally assessed on standardized tests. Thus, a
shift toward the use of journals, portfolios, performance tasks with rubrics, and
self-assessments becomes essential to balance more traditional assessments.
3. Curriculum and Standards: With the compliance with new state and national stan-
dards, the “one-size-fits-all” approach to curriculum does not always complement
a constructivist culture. That does not mean that constructivist teachers do not have
high standards for their students, but having standards, without flexibility, for dif-
ferentiating individual instruction is not always compatible with a constructivist
philosophy. Given the pressures of standardized instruction, many schools and
teachers do not have the luxury of reducing the curricula load despite the call from
some educational reform experts that less is more. Constructivist teachers face the
challenge of finding ways to teach fewer topics in greater depth while still meeting
national or state standards. Fortunately, the Next Generation Science Standards
(NGSS) have a more coherent vision than previous national science standard and
benchmark projects. The NGSS focus on a fewer number of core ideas to allow for
greater exploration and time for students to develop more meaningful understand-
ing of the core ideas identified. The NGSS authors vow not to repeat the miscues
from previous standards initiatives often characterized as being “a mile wide and
an inch deep.”
4. Daily Schedule: As teachers provide the opportunity for students to design their
own investigations and scientifically argue their findings, the daily schedule of
45-minute periods soon becomes constraining. For teachers to implement construc-
tivist and inquiry-based strategies, block scheduling becomes a viable alternative
for extended instructional time and opportunities for teachers across disciplines to
integrate their curricula and develop team teaching partnerships. A block schedule
may also give time for a team of teachers to redesign the curriculum and environ-
ment into theme-based and project-based units of study. Block scheduling can also
provide common planning time for cross-content teachers to engage in discourse
and reflection.
5. Textbooks: Textbooks are the greatest single source of information from printed
materials used in high schools today. Look in any high school or college science
classroom and you will probably find a single textbook being used. Because most
textbooks are principally written for a national audience, publishers fear swaying
too far from the “middle of the road” from what school districts expect in a text-
book. With the exception of some authors such as the BSCS in biology and Paul
Hewitt in physics, writers of high school science textbooks usually pre-teach
vocabulary and introduce new concepts before students have an opportunity to
explore the topic being studied. To move toward a constructivist culture, teachers
and administrators should consider a multi-text approach, while using primary
sources of relevant information.
6. Professional Development: Although many agree that professional development is
a continuous, lifelong process, too often teachers experience professional develop-
ment as fragmented, one-shot workshops or inservice days that center on the trans-
mission of either content knowledge or classroom management skills presented
from the speaker to the audience. In creating a constructivist and inquiry-based
culture, according to the NRC (1996), “The conventional view of professional
development for teachers needs to shift from technical training for specific skills to
opportunities for intellectual professional growth” (p. 58). Such opportunities may
include understanding the theoretical foundations for constructivism along with
teaching strategies consisting of scaffolding, modeling, cooperative learning, and
implementing performance assessments. The NRC (1996) goes on to say that
“when teachers have the time and opportunity to describe their own views about
learning and teaching, and to compare, contrast, and revise their views, they come
to understand the nature of exemplary science teaching” (p. 67).
All Things Are Possible

To cultivate a constructivist classroom culture, teachers need to develop a new vision
about teaching and learning founded on research-based knowledge and then work to
91
change their practices to achieve their vision. It is a dreadful experience to gaze out
into a classroom full of students and have no vision for them. The very essence of
teaching involves the creation of a vision for both you and your students. You can’t
sound an inaudible trumpet. Students are more inclined to be drawn into learning
when you, as their teacher, have a compelling instructional vision that makes it clear
what you believe, what you stand for. Let it inspire and motivate your students to
learn.
How do you form this vision? Start by transforming a constructivist philosophy into
practice. Visualize the classroom you desire. See it, feel it, believe in it. Make a mental
blueprint of it and stamp it indelibly in your mind. Then formulate a mental picture of
yourself in this classroom you created. Hold onto this picture tenaciously—never allow it
to fade away. Great teachers create a vision, articulate the vision, and relentlessly drive to
fulfill it. Keep your vision alive. Understand that to bring your vision to fruition you must
also believe in yourself. By studying the tenets of constructivism, you acquire a moral
compass that charts your journey in creating a learner-centered classroom. It’s that moral
compass that guides your attitudes and behaviors and eventually your legacy as a
teacher.
Because visions are often achieved through reflection and collaboration, you
need to realize that you probably cannot fulfill your vision effectively doing it alone.
Like inquiry, transforming classroom norms and altering past practices requires a
support system sustained over time. Find a colleague who embraces the same con-
structivist philosophy you do. Let your vision guide your achievements and shape
your legacy. With self-confidence, commitment, and strength of character, all things
are possible.
Case Study: Investigating Yeast

In this case study, we will examine a 10th-grade biology class carrying out laboratory
investigations involving yeast. The investigations in this case study lead students from
teacher-initiated inquiries into student-initiated inquiries. In addition, the case study will
further our understanding of how teachers can use a constructivist lesson format, the 5E
Learning Cycle, to sequence instruction.
This lesson correlates to A Framework for K−12 Science Education (NRC, 2012).
Practices
•• Asking questions · Constructing explanations

•• Developing and using models · Obtaining, evaluating, and
•• Planning and carrying out investigations communicating information
•• Energy and matter
Core Ideas
•• LS1.C: Organization for Matter and Energy Flow in Organisms: Sustaining life
requires substantial energy and matter inputs.
A Day at the Life Sciences Learning Center

Sara McClane has been teaching general and college preparatory biology at Penport
High School for 8 years. This past July, she participated in a 2-week summer professional
development workshop sponsored by the Life Sciences Learning Center (LSLC), located
at the University of Rochester in Rochester, New York. The goal of the workshop was to
engage secondary school science teachers in inquiry and constructivist-based instruction.
As a follow-up to that workshop, participating teachers are encouraged to bring their
biology classes back to the LSLC for a full day of laboratory investigations. The LSLC is
a unique hands-on science inquiry center serving middle, high school, and Advanced
Placement students and teachers throughout central-western New York State. The LSLC
is devoted entirely to precollege science education and providing hands-on, inquiry-
based, and laboratory-based investigations for students aligned to the state’s science
learning standards. The LSLC also provides ongoing professional development, such as
the workshop Ms. McClane attended, on constructivist-based life science instruction and
biotechnology for secondary school teachers. For more information on the LSLC, visit
http://lifesciences.envmed.rochester.edu/.
Dr. Dina Markowitz, LSLC director, and Ms. Jana Penders, LSLC science educator,
lead the lessons for students attending the center. Dina is a full professor and director of
community outreach and education programs at the University of Rochester’s Department
of Environmental Medicine. Jana is a former high school biology and chemistry teacher
with research experience in microbiology and molecular biology.
Ms. McClane brought her class to the LSLC for an investigation about yeasts. The
day’s agenda for the investigation follows the 5E Learning Cycle format. The morning
session includes the Engagement and Exploration stages. Following lunch, students
return for the Explanation and Extension stages. The Evaluation stage will be completed
by Ms. McClane the next day, when the class returns to school.
Engagement Stage: What Is Life?

Sara and her students arrive by bus at the center at 8:30 a.m. They are greeted at the
door by Dina and led upstairs to the laboratory. As the students put on their white lab
coats and settle onto the stools at their assigned lab tables, the lesson opens with a 20-minute
introduction by Jana. She initiates a discussion to assess the students’ prior understand-
ing of the characteristics of living things. “What do you know about living things?” she
asks. “Do you think this is living?” she asks as she points to a potted geranium near the
window. Nora, a student in the class, tells Jana that living things carry out certain func-
tions such as respiration and reproduction and also respond to external stimuli. “Since
the geranium performs these functions,” Nora says, “it is a living organism.” Jana then
shows the class a picture on the television monitor and continues. “How about these bac-
teria? Are they alive? How do you know?” Several students provide responses to indicate
that bacteria, like the geranium, are living organisms.
“Today we are going to act like scientists and detectives,” Jana says. “In a sense, they
both do the same kind of work. They both make observations and draw inferences based
on their observations.” She then holds up two identical-looking vials, one labeled “A”
and the other labeled “B.” The vials contain equal amounts of tan-colored granules.
“We have a mystery to solve,” Jana continues. “I have two vials, but I don’t know
what is in them. I’ll need your help in finding out which of the granules in the vials are
living organisms or nonliving.” Although the contents look nearly identical, vial A con-
tains sand and vial B contains common baker’s yeast. The students are told that their task
93
is to perform several laboratory techniques to determine which vial contains living organ-
isms, be able to substantiate their evidence, and be able to provide a logical explanation.
“You will be making both qualitative and quantitative observations,” Jana tells the students.
“All your data should be accurately recorded in your science journals.” The students then
pair up and move on to the Exploration stage, during which they begin to test the sam-
ples in the vials.
Exploration Stage
During the next 2.5 hours, students design their investigations through prompting
and guidance by Jana and Dina. The students are provided with the following materials
and equipment to help them collect evidence and draw their conclusions:
•• One vial of sand (labeled Sample A)

•• One vial of baker’s yeast (labeled Sample B)
•• One transfer pipette
•• One small beaker containing 100 mL of warm water
•• Two test tubes
•• Two large zip-top bags
•• One plastic teaspoon
•• One permanent marker
•• One ruler
•• One 100 mL graduated cylinder
•• Two packets of sugar and artificial sweeteners such as Equal, Sweet’N Low, or
Sugar Twin (For information on artificial sweeteners, see www.equal.com, www
.sweetnlow.com, or www.sugartwin.com.)
•• Microscope slides
•• Microscope cover slips
•• One container of methylene blue
•• One magnifying lens
•• Paper towels
•• One dissecting microscope
•• One compound microscope (with oil immersion)
•• Oil for immersion objective
•• One incubator (set at 37 ºC)
“Because all good scientists and detectives start with observations,” Jana explains,
“your first step is to use your senses, with the exception of taste, to observe the two samples.
Although they are both safe, it’s recommended not to taste anything in a laboratory. You
can observe the samples first with your naked eye and then by using a magnifying lens.”
“Later,” Dina adds, “you can put the samples under the microscope and see if there
is a difference in the samples. I suggest you start with the dissecting scope first and then
use the compound microscope later. This way, you are always increasing in magnifica-
tion.” The groups take the next 15 minutes to observe both vials and record observations
in their science journals.
In one group, Ann records that Sample B looks like fish food. Michael adds that
Sample B looks like little capsules and smells like pizza dough. In another group, Michelle
says, “Sample A doesn’t smell at all, and Sample B smells like yeast.” As the students are
busy making their preliminary observations, Jana encourages students to use a two-
column chart, similar to Figure 5.4, to record their observations and questions.
Figure 5.4 Two-Column Chart
Observations Questions
Once the groups have made their initial observations, they are ready to move on to Step
2. Jana begins the discussion by asking, “What can we do next to further our investigation?”
A student suggests, “I think we should put each sample in some water and see if it
dissolves, floats or sinks, or changes color.” With minimal guidance, each group now
takes a small sample of the two unknown granules, places the samples in separate test
tubes, and adds equal amounts of water. The students then observe the test tubes with a
magnifying lens and note that Sample A rests at the bottom of the test tube and water,
while Sample B forms a suspension. One group asks if they can prepare a wet mount of
each sample, and Dina encourages the entire class to do so. The students observe the two
samples under both low and high magnification. For the first time, the groups distinguish
significant differences between the two samples microscopically, using both flat and
depression slides. Students now include in their journals illustrations of granules for
Sample A and cell-like objects for Sample B.
As Dina continues to circulate among the groups, Jana places slides of Samples A and
B, similar to what the students prepared, in the micro-viewer for the entire class to see.
She uses the samples in the micro-viewer to compare and contrast the two samples and
what the students have in their own microscopes. She suggests the students construct a
Venn diagram in their notebooks, similar to Figure 5.5, to record the similarities and dif-
ferences of Samples A and B.
Figure 5.5 Venn Diagram
Sample A Sample B
95
By the end of Step 2, most of the groups conclude that the samples are sand and yeast.
Although many of the groups come to this conclusion, they are reminded that they need
substantial data to prove their case and that their observations alone are not sufficient.
They need more evidence!
Jana now leads the class into a discussion about the staining techniques for Step 3 of
the investigation. She tells the class that when they add methylene blue to each slide
sample, the stain will indicate the presence of a cell membrane. “How, then, does the
methylene help you to answer the question—is it alive?” she asks.
Maria answers, “If the methylene blue stain is absorbed by the sample and the cell
membrane is highlighted, we have additional proof that the sample is a living organism.”
Jana now demonstrates how to add a drop of methylene blue to the slide. By placing a
drop of stain at one end of the cover slip and by placing a piece of paper towel at the
opposite end, the stain is drawn across the slide, through the sample, and into the paper
towel. After students perform the technique on both slides, they view the samples under
100X magnification with oil immersion and soon discover that the sand, Sample A, does
not absorb the indicator, whereas the yeast in Sample B does, highlighting the cell mem-
brane. They conclude that Sample B consists of living cells.
The students are now ready to begin Step 4. Dina begins this section of the investiga-
tion by asking, “Do you think the yeasts will grow in water alone?”
“No,” one student suggests. “They need a food supply.”
Dina then asks, “What food supply would you add to the water to help the yeast
grow?” Some students suggest sugar; others suggest molasses or corn syrup. “All of you
are right,” she says. “Now let’s design a way to determine the effect of sugar, or any
another sweetener, on the samples.” During this part of the lesson, students are led
through a teacher-initiated inquiry: Are yeasts living things, and do they need a food sup-
ply, like sugar, to grow? Students are given two zip-top plastic bags, and they place a
teaspoon of yeast in each bag. A packet of sugar is added to one of the bags and labeled
Figure 5.6
“Sugar.” The second bag, to which no sugar is added, is labeled “Control.” One hundred
milliliters of warm water is added to each bag. (Some students decide they want do the
identical procedure with the sand sample just to compare.)
The students squeeze all the air out of the bags, seal the tops, and roll the bags tightly.
They now place their paired bags in an incubator set at 37 °C for 15 minutes.
After 15 minutes, the students remove their bags from the incubator, measure any
vertical rise in the bags, and return the bags to the incubator for another 15 minutes.
After 30 minutes and again at 45 minutes, the students repeat the procedure, removing
the bags from the incubator and measuring any change in height. The students continue
to make observations and record their measurements in their science journals. One
student makes the following notation in her journal:
When I add sugar to the yeast and then place the bag in an incubator for 30 minutes,
fermentation occurs and a gas, probably carbon dioxide, is produced. The bag inflates
because the gas being produced is trapped within the bag. The yeast metabolizes the sugar
and produces the gas (carbon dioxide) as a by-product.
Bag Height (in centimeters)
Time (in minutes) Control Sugar

15 0 1
30 0 2
45 0 5
Explanation Stage
After the groups record their data from the yeast exploration, Jana brings the class
together for a teacher-led discussion. A handout accompanies her comments. “Yeasts,”
she explains, “are unicellular and belong to a group of microorganisms called the asco-
mycotes, or sac fungi. Their scientific name is Saccharomyces cerevisiae, meaning sugar lov-
ing. They are quite common and can be found naturally in the soil, in animals, including
humans, on locker room floors, or just about anywhere there is moisture. Yeasts are espe-
cially noted for their ability to ferment carbohydrates, like sugar, and produce alcohol and
carbon dioxide. This makes them important in the production of beer, wines, and bread.
Yeasts usually reproduce by budding. That means that they reproduce asexually by
producing small budlike outgrowths from the parent cell. Yeasts, however, can also reproduce
sexually by producing spores called ascospores.”
As the students take notes for their presentations, Jana shows yeast cells and their
rigid cell walls on the monitor using the micro-viewer. She continues her presentation by
explaining that yeasts, although living, are neither plants nor animals. “They belong to a
separate phylum of fungus,” she adds. “And since mycology is study of fungi, today you
have been working as mycologists!” She goes on to explain why yeasts are eukaryotic and
describes both the fermentation process and the life cycle of yeasts.
At the end of the Explanation stage, the class concludes that yeasts are indeed living
organisms because they reproduce, use respiration, and repair and grow new cells. The
class also concludes that Sample A is sand and Sample B is yeast. After a full morning of
laboratory work, the class breaks for lunch.
97
Elaboration Stage: What Do Yeast Live On?

When the students return from lunch, they are ready to begin the Elaboration stage,
in which they design their own student-initiated investigations. Jana tells the students to
work in their groups to brainstorm questions to investigate. She suggests they refer to
their two-column charts from the Engagement section and their data from the Exploration
section to consider questions for further investigation.
After a few minutes of brainstorming, Tim and Carrie decide to test regular sugar
versus artificial sweeteners. They want to see if the amount of carbon dioxide produced
during fermentation varies among natural and artificial sweeteners such as table sugar,
Equal, Sweet’N Low, and Sugar Twin. They design their investigation so that equal
amounts of each sugar or sweetener are placed in a plastic bag with yeast and warm
water.
Brian and Brandon want to find out how the amount of sugar affects the rate of fer-
mentation and production of carbon dioxide. To do this, they propose adding varying
amounts of sugar (10, 20, 30, and 40 grams) to the plastic bags. They also hope to deter-
mine how the amounts of food available affect the growth of the yeast cells.
Donnell and Willis want to know if baker’s yeast metabolizes differently in varying
types of sugars. To do this, they design an investigation to test sucrose, dextrose, glucose,
and fructose. They inform Dina that their manipulating variable in the investigation is the
type of sugar used and the responding variable is the amount of carbon dioxide produced
as measured by the height of the bag after fermentation.
Sandy and Sharon’s question is, “What is the optimal temperature for yeast growth?”
They decide to investigate the ideal conditions for yeast growth and metabolism by grow-
ing yeasts at three different temperatures: 27 ºC, 37 ºC, and 47 ºC.
When Carol and Ron placed the methylene blue stain in the slide from the morning
investigation, they stirred three new questions, What would happen if we place a sugar
solution under the slide of yeasts? Will gas bubbles form under the cover slip? Will the
carbon dioxide bubbles look different from air bubbles?
For each investigation, Jana and Dina encourage the students to identify the manipu-
lated (or independent) variable, the responding (or dependent) variable, and the control-
ling (or constant) variables. Once the students design their experiments, they bring their
plans to Dina or Jana for approval. After an hour of investigation, each group has 10
minutes to share with the class the question they investigated and communicate their
findings.
Before they know it, it is time for the class to board the bus and return to school. As
the students make final notations in their journals and clean up their lab stations, they all
agree that the day was worthwhile and rewarding. Many of the students comment that
they felt they were actually doing real science!
Evaluation Stage
In class the next day, Ms. McClane uses the data collected at the LSLC to introduce a
genetics lesson on haploid and diploid life cycles. The purpose of the lesson is to extend
the Elaboration stage and apply what the students learned at the LSLC to the district’s
science standards and curriculum. At the completion of the Elaboration stage, Ms.
McClane gives the students a unit test. The unit test includes multiple-choice questions,
several short answer response questions, and a performance task to assess their progress
in meeting the learning standards. Here is the task the students are given:
The task: A student wants to demonstrate how the rate at which a balloon inflates is
proportional to the growth rate of the yeast cells. Use the materials listed below to
complete the task:
1. Design an investigation to solve the problem.

2. Provide an appropriate table to record your data.
3. Carry out your investigation.
4. Fill in the data table.
5. Make a graph of your results.
6. Draw a conclusion from the data collected.
Materials
•• 100 mL of warm water

•• Sugar cubes (or packets)
•• A package of yeast
•• One medium-sized plastic bottle or flask
•• One balloon
•• One metric measuring tape
A sample procedure may look like the following:
1. Place the three sugar cubes (or packets) in the plastic bottle and pour in
100 mL of warm tap water.
2. Swirl the bottle until the sugar has dissolved.
3. Pour the entire contents from the package of yeast into the bottle.
4. Squeeze all the air from the balloon and stretch the balloon over the top of the
bottle.
5. Observe what happens. Every 5 minutes, use the measuring tape to measure
the circumference of the balloon.
Time (in minutes) Circumference of balloon (in centimeters)

5
10
15
20
25
30
99
In this case study, we see how teachers can use the 5E Learning Cycle to design
investigations and units of study. We also see how a structured or guided inquiry can lead
to a self-directed inquiry. Each of these types of inquiries will be explained more fully in
the next chapter.

and Discussion
1. When having students design their own investigation, what precautions should the
teacher take before allowing students to begin carrying out the procedures?
2. How can teachers anticipate the kinds of supplies, materials, and equipment that
will be needed when students design their own inquiries?
3. If the teacher decides to use a rubric in this lesson, where would it be most
appropriate?
4. What other examples of assessments can you suggest for the evaluation phase of
the lesson?
5. Suggest how a teacher could add a follow-up argumentation section to the yeast
investigation where students a) communicate their findings to their peers and b)
justify and defend their claims and evidence?
6. Read the following statement from Kahil Gibran’s (1923) The Prophet and apply it
to learning through a constructivist approach.
“If (the teacher) is indeed wise he does not bid you to enter the house of his
wisdom, but rather leads you to the threshold of your own mind.”
7. Read the following statement. State whether you either agree or disagree with it.
Provide an example from your own classroom experience to support your position.
“A misconception can spread throughout a classroom even before the teacher

knows it’s out there.”
6
Four Levels of
Science Inquiry
Promoting Student Inquiries

At this point, you have a good idea what scientific inquiry is and the kind of mind-set one
needs to become an inquiry-based teacher. These issues advance your understanding of
the meaning of inquiry—the “why do” aspect. Now, we turn our attention to the mechanics—
the “how to” aspects—including the four different levels of science inquiry and how to
design a science inquiry for each. In this chapter, we focus our attention on describing the
investigations and inquiries that take place within and outside classroom walls. This
chapter also distinguishes between typical science activities and laboratory experiences
versus investigations that encourage students to pose questions, pursue their own
answers, and communicate their findings and claims through argumentation.
High school science teachers new to inquiry usually ask three “how to” questions:
1. What are the essential elements of a science inquiry?

2. How does a science inquiry investigation compare and contrast with the typical
“cookbook” lab I do in class?
3. How do I get my students started in an inquiry-based activity if they have no prior
experience in inquiry?
Exploration of these three questions is essential for any teacher beginning to develop an
inquiry-centered classroom. We will now answer all three questions.
Every day at the high school level, teachers face prepubescent and “budding” adoles-
cents whose bodies are on a hormone-induced emotional roller-coaster ride. High school
students are often self-conscious about raising questions and reluctant to give answers,
because by doing so they risk the appearance of standing out in the class. For this reason,
high school science teachers who have students with little prior experience in inquiry
should introduce their classes gradually to student-initiated investigations. The “Invitation
100
FOUR LEVELS OF SCIENCE INQUIRY
101
to Inquiry Grid” serves as a means to identify and categorize levels of inquiry-based

instruction and guide more traditional-thinking students into scientific inquiry, reason-
ing, and argumentation.
Invitation to Inquiry
Most laboratory experiments and activities that high school teachers do in science can be
divided into three fundamental and distinct sections:
1. Posing the question

2. Planning the procedure
3. Communicating the results
Depending on whether each of the three sections is either posed by the teacher or
completed by the students, the activity can result in different learning experiences.
Picture, if you will, a high school science teacher posing an investigable question to
his or her students. Picture the teacher explaining the inquiry procedure, and picture
the teacher actually performing the steps of the science inquiry. Also imagine the
teacher posing questions that prompt students toward a conclusion and analysis of
the inquiry. We will call this scenario a demonstrated inquiry. In a second situation,
picture the teacher posing the question to the students and then providing a step-by-
step procedure to steer a solution to the question. The students will then follow the
procedure and collect and organize the results on their own. We will call this scenario
a structured inquiry. In a third situation, picture the teacher proposing one or more
questions to the students and then allowing the students to choose which question to
investigate. The students next plan their procedures, design their own data tables,
and then analyze and communicate their results. We will call this a guided or teacher-
initiated inquiry. In our final situation, visualize the students posing their own
questions, planning a procedure for answering the questions, designing their own
data tables, and then analyzing and communicating their results. We will call this a
self-directed or student-initiated inquiry.
Figure 6.1 summarizes the four levels of instruction, with each successive level serv-
ing as a vehicle to further invite more ownership of the question and self-discovery.
Figure 6.1 Invitation to Inquiry Grid
Self-Directed or
Demonstrated Guided or Teacher- Student-Initiated
Inquiry Structured Inquiry Initiated Inquiry Inquiry
Posing the Question Teacher Teacher Teacher Student
Planning the Teacher Teacher Student Student

Procedure
Communicating the Teacher Student Student Student

Results
Demonstrated Inquiries
According to Figure 6.1, demonstrated inquiries focus the attention and the control of the
situation around the teacher and the phenomenon being exhibited. Many science teachers
are very familiar with doing demonstrated inquiries because they play an important role
in teaching science-related topics. Some concepts and topics are best presented through
this type of presentation. Why? For the teacher, doing demonstrated inquiries captures
the attention of the audience, acts as a cognitive hook to “wow” the audience, and keeps
students’ minds engaged. For the students, demonstrated inquiries are usually interest-
ing, thought provoking, and enjoyable to observe, especially when the results are coun-
terintuitive and provide an unanticipated result. At this point you may be asking, “Isn’t
a demonstrated inquiry the same as a typical demonstration?” Well, the answer to that is
both yes and no. They are similar in that they are both teacher centered and both are
usually conducted when
•• all students need to observe a particular phenomenon;

•• the procedure is complicated for students to follow;
•• the results of the phenomenon need to be guided or controlled;
•• dangerous, toxic, or flammable materials are used;
•• an explosion may (or will) result;
•• safety is a concern;
•• materials or equipment are limited;
•• expensive chemicals, equipment, or other supplies are being used; and
•• time is of the essence.
In primary school, we probably all participated in “show and tell.” When I was in
second grade and it was my turn for show and tell, I brought my pet turtle to school
and got up in front of the room and talked about my favorite animal. Traditional
demonstrations are like show and tell, where the teacher is generally doing the showing
and the telling—or in some cases, yelling. Demonstrated inquiries differ from
conventional demonstrations in the way the teacher integrates questioning into the
presentation. In a demonstrated inquiry, the teacher often will pose questions to solicit
input in designing the demonstration. In this case, the student plays a more active role
then just being a passive observer. Also in demonstrated inquiries, the conclusion is
counterintuitive to a student’s normal experience and evokes “What if . . .” or “I
wonder . . .” sequel questions. This acts as a means to extend the inquiry beyond the
initial demonstration. Demonstrated inquiries that invite further questions and
follow-up inquiries are often called discrepant events.
Discrepant Events
Discrepant events are mind-engaging actions in which the students observe unex-
pected outcomes. Wondering why these unexpected things happen, contrary to what
was anticipated, students experiencing the discrepancy have the motivation and
interest to formulate additional questions to pursue. Discrepant events are especially
useful for initiating a lesson or a unit of study and capturing students’ interest and
promoting curiosity. The outcome usually produces a lot of “oohs” and “ahhs.” For
some students a discrepant event can become an epiphany or a eureka moment of
sudden unexplained discovery. When a high school boy combines the “ah” of won-
derment and the “ha” of laughter, he gets an “ah-ha” moment and says, “I got it!”
103
Observing discrepant events can serve as a springboard to other science inquiries.

Rather than introducing a new topic or concept and later providing the typical demon-
stration that proves the concept is correct, the discrepant event is used at the beginning
of the lesson to capture the students’ imagination and sense of wonder. Discrepant events
are successful when they initiate a wanting to know. Several steps are recommended in
incorporating discrepant events into a lesson:
1. Demonstrate the event. Present students with an opportunity to observe results

that appear contradictory. Provide students with an opportunity to confront the
questions being raised.
2. Allow students to investigate the event. Students should be allowed to test the
event or discrepancy by using science process skills such as observing, inferring,
recording data, formulating hypotheses, and generalizing. Allow sufficient time to
test the event and form hypotheses or questions to investigate. Encourage students
to raise “What if . . .” and “I wonder . . .” questions about the discrepancy. Provide
guidance to introduce inquiry strategies without giving away the answer or pro-
viding a full explanation.
3. Allow time for students to test their “What if . . .” and “I wonder . . .” questions and
share the results of their inquiries.
4. Discuss the causes of the discrepancy to introduce the topic being studied (density,
pressure, heat, etc.). During the discussion, refer back to the demonstration to
personalize the concept being presented.
5. Apply the concept being studied to an application level beyond the classroom.
Provide a culminating activity or laboratory experience that extends the learning
rather than proves that what already was said is correct.
Structured Inquiries
With traditional hands-on labs, the teacher or the textbook provides the question to be
studied, usually at the top of the lab sheet. The students are told what materials to use
and what procedures to follow to generate expected data and results. These labs are
sometimes called “cookbook” science because, as with following a recipe in a cookbook,
students are expected to follow prescribed directions or procedures in which the results
from all the students are predictably the same. Many high school science teachers sub-
scribe to this type of confirmation activity because it provides direction for the students
and tells them what to do to complete the experiment.
Teachers often stick to what’s in the textbook and rely on prescribed labs as a source
of involving students in science because they feel that labs are easy to follow and provide
students with focus and direction on how to carry out the activity. Although cookbook
labs provide students with an opportunity to do hands-on, manipulative science, they
usually confirm an expected, predicted outcome.
For example, in a traditional activity from a 10th-grade chemistry class, the teacher
poses the following question: “How can you test the hardness of water?” Then the teacher
provides each group of students the materials to be used:
•• Four samples of water (hard, tap, distilled, and bottled) labeled A, B, C, and D
•• Four test tubes
•• Four rubber stoppers
•• A test-tube rack
•• A graduated cylinder
•• Liquid soap
•• An eyedropper
Next, the teacher provides the procedures for the students to follow:
1. Use the graduated cylinder to measure 50 mL of water sample A.

2. Label the test tube “Sample A.”
3. Place the 50 mL of Sample A in a test tube.
4. Repeat the procedure for the other three water samples—B, C, and D. Place each
sample in a separate test tube. Label each test tube according to the sample it
contains.
5. Use the eyedropper to place two drops of liquid soap in each of the test tubes
containing the water samples.
6. Observe and record your findings.
7. Now place a rubber stopper in each test tube and gently swirl each of the soap and
water mixtures for 15 seconds. Again, observe and record your results.
8. Repeat the same procedure, but this time, vigorously shake each of the soap and
water mixtures for 1 minute. Observe and record your results.
9. Repeat the same procedure for 3 minutes. Observe and record your results.
Figure 6.2 Data Table
Observations Before Observations After 15 Observations After 1 Observations After 3

Sample Shaking Second of Shaking Minute of Shaking Minutes of Shaking
Although this is a relatively simple activity that most high school students can
complete, you can see how teacher directed it is. The original question, the materials
needed, and the procedures are all provided to the students. All that the students have to
do is follow the steps of the procedure and record the results in the appropriate column
in the data table. You can see that this activity can be thought of as a type of cookbook
activity, and although it is hands-on, it is not inquiry based.
Laboratory experiences can, however, become a means of inviting inquiry and can be
used as a springboard into inquiry when, like discrepant events, they provide an oppor-
tunity for students to make observations or discoveries that are unexpected or unpre-
dicted. This brings us to the structured inquiry. In some ways the structured inquiry may
be similar to the kinds of labs normally found in high school science textbooks—but there
105
are differences. Whereas cookbook labs usually provide students with the question to be
tested, a step-by-step procedure to follow, and a data table to fill in, with structured
inquiry students are responsible for designing a chart or table to organize the data col-
lected. This is an important distinction because if a student cannot design his or her own
data table, you can assume he or she doesn’t fully understand the investigation or vari-
ables being examined. In addition, by having the student design his or her own data table,
the task enhances more ownership of the investigation.
Structured labs also have another distinctive feature. Whereas traditional labs usually
have follow-up questions that focus on summarizing the results, structured inquiries
encourage students to analyze their findings and draw implications for proposing subse-
quent inquiries where they raise new questions and design their own investigations—
again increasing the ownership of the experience. Structured inquiries are especially
appropriate when students need practice in following directions or have little prior expe-
rience in scientific inquiry. By first providing this type of inquiry and then moving on to
more student-directed inquiries, the teacher can scaffold students toward more indepen-
dence and ownership in conducting their own investigations.
Guided or Teacher-Initiated Inquiries

The guided or teacher-initiated inquiry is the next level of independence for students. In this
case, the teacher provides the question, but the student is responsible for designing the inves-
tigation as well as the data table and analyzing and communicating the results. It is very
similar to problem solving, where a student is given a problem and asked to plan a solution.
The previous activity for testing hard water can be easily modified from a structured
inquiry to a guided inquiry. One step would be to have several prearranged questions for
students to answer on their own. The teacher could pose several starter questions as
prompts. The students then would be required to write their own procedures and carry
out their own investigations. The following are several starter questions:
•• Using soap as an indicator, how can you design a procedure to test the hardness of
water?
•• What materials will you need?
•• What different samples of water will you test?
•• What steps will you follow?
•• What will you look for to determine the level of hardness in the water?
•• How will you organize and record your results?
Again, by first presenting the hard water as an initial exploration in the form of a
demonstrated or structured inquiry, the teacher can lead students in choosing other
questions to investigate. Say, for example, the teacher provides an opening exploration by
testing one sample of water for hardness. From this initial experience, students would be
given an opportunity to develop follow-up questions to investigate on their own. In this
way, students are being scaffolded from a demonstrated or structured inquiry to a guided
inquiry. Questions may include the following:
•• How sanitary is the water from the school drinking fountain? In the school’s locker
room showers?
•• Do different brands of bottled water yield different test results?
•• What result would we get if we tried the water from our own homes? Or from
swimming pool water? Or water in a local pond, stream, or river?
•• What results would we get if we tested the city water versus well water?
•• What’s the difference between hard and soft water? What causes water to be
“hard”? How can you make hard water “soft”?
•• Do some laundry detergents work best in hard water? Or soft water?
In these examples, you can see how students progress from a structured inquiry to a
guided inquiry. This is usually the case since most students first need a basic experience
to move on to a higher level of inquiry. As you scaffold students to more independent
levels of inquiry, consider how you can first provide an introductory exploration that
activates and models the inquiry process, thereby moving students along the continuum
toward self-directed learning.
Self-Directed or Student-
Initiated Inquiries
The highest level of inquiry occurs when students initiate their own questions. According
to the Invitation to Inquiry Grid, in self-directed or student-initiated inquiries (sometimes
called open inquiry or full inquiry) students raise their own questions, design their own
procedures, and organize and analyze their own results. During self-directed inquiry, the
overall responsibility for the completion of the task shifts from the teacher to the student.
We now understand how the levels of self-directed ownership and involvement on
the part of the teachers and the students vary significantly for each learning situation
described. During a demonstrated inquiry, the teacher plays an active role while the stu-
dents play a more observant role. In contrast, during the self-directed inquiry, the stu-
dents have full ownership of the questions while the teacher plays a facilitating role. That
doesn’t mean that the teacher passively stands aside during a student-initiated investiga-
tion. The teacher still has the responsibility of posing ancillary questions to foster critical
thinking during the investigation and directing students to online and consult print
Figure 6.3 Student/Teacher Ownership
TEACHER PARTICIPATION
(Low/Passive) (High/Active)
(Low/Passive) Demonstrated Inquiries

STUDENT PARTICIPATION
Guided Inquiries
(High/Active)
Self-Directed Inquiries
107
resources to help clarify the findings of the inquiry. The teacher plays an even greater role
when the inquiry’s results are communicated through an argument-based discussion.
Here the teacher plays an important role in facilitating the discussion and keeping the
students on-task as they justify and defend their claims to their peers. Figure 6.3 summa-
rizes the ownership level of each learning situation.
Guiding Students Into Inquiry

Most students, and teachers for that matter, are not ready to begin with full student-
generated inquiries at the start of the school year. During the first few weeks of school,
teachers need to set expectations for classroom management, discipline, classroom rou-
tines, grading procedures, and so on. Establishing and maintaining a healthy and safe
classroom is a prerequisite for an inquiry lesson. Without rules, inquiry becomes unruly
and unmanageable. It is normal for teachers to wait until they grow accustomed to their
classes before starting a full inquiry-based unit. This is especially true for teachers who
have students coming to them without prior experience in inquiry learning. So the recom-
mendation to novice teachers is to get your classroom management house in order before
moving on to inquiry-based instruction. An active classroom needs a teacher with honed
management skills. This topic will be addressed in more detail in Chapter 8.
The Invitation to Inquiry Grid (Figure 6.1) can also serve as a way to chart a yearlong
instructional plan so that students are gradually but continuously encouraged to take on
more responsibility for their learning. During the early months of the school year or when
students are unfamiliar with inquiry learning, the teacher may choose to begin with dem-
onstrated inquiries, focusing on having students observe and experience several mind-
engaging discrepant events. During the next several months, the teacher can then move into
the structured-inquiry stage, concentrating on providing sound hands-on inquiries that
provide the opportunity for extended investigations. Before the end of the first semester, a
reasonable expectation would be to have students involved in one or more guided inqui-
ries, with the goal of evolving the students’ expertise into several full student-initiated
inquiries at the beginning of the second semester. In the final analysis, each teacher has to
plot his or her own course based on the experience and capability of the class. In this
example, the Invitation to Inquiry Grid serves as a monitoring tool for teachers in designing
their yearlong instructional plans. As the school year proceeds, teachers can ask, “Am I
moving my students from teacher-dependent to more independent experiences, and am I
providing opportunities for student-initiated inquiries as the year progresses?”
By now, you should have a good grasp of the difference between doing a non-inquiry,
hands-on lab and an inquiry-based lab. You have read that although most inquiry inves-
tigations involve using hands-on and minds-on means of learning, not all hands-on labs
are inquiry based. Although it may be hands-on, when a lab presented by the teacher or
the textbook provides the question to be investigated, directs what materials to use, tells
what variable to test, lists the steps to follow to find the answer to the question, and
shows how to organize the data collected, it’s indubitably not inquiry. That’s not to say
that a traditional type of lab doesn’t have a time or place in the high school science pro-
gram; it just says, Don’t call it inquiry.
To further explain the differences among a demonstrated, a structured, a guided, and
a self-directed inquiry, a lesson on soil permeability will be presented in four different
approaches. Using the same science concept, we can then see how each level differs from
the others.
Let’s suppose, in a high school earth science class, we wanted to find out the drainage
rates of different types of soil. As a demonstrated inquiry, the teacher probably would be
standing in front of the class behind a demonstration table, posing the question, “How
does the type of the soil determine the drainage of water through the soil?” The teacher
would then show and describe the supplies and materials to be used in the lesson.
Following the outlined steps of the procedure, the teacher would set up the materials as
follows.
The teacher inserts a piece of filter paper into a large funnel that is held above a collect-
ing beaker. The teacher then measures a given amount, approximately 200 grams, of a soil
sample and places the soil sample into the funnel. Then the teacher uses a graduated
cylinder to measure 100 mL of water and pours the water over the soil sample in the fun-
nel. As the water seeps through the soil sample, some of the liquid will drain through the
bottom of the funnel and drip into the collecting beaker. At the end of 5 minutes, the
teacher measures the amount of water in the collecting beaker and has the students record
the results in their science journals. At the conclusion of the demonstrated inquiry, the
teacher assists the students in summarizing the data, plotting the results on a bar graph,
then describing the relationship between the soil and the amount of water that drained
through the sample. Because this demonstration does not represent a discrepant event,
the teacher poses extension questions to the class. For example, the teacher asks the stu-
dents, “What kinds of results would you expect if you tested samples of clay, sand, loam,
peat moss, and topsoil?” These extension questions serve as a springboard to having
students conduct their own inquiries the next day. In small groups of three to five stu-
dents, each group tests one type of soil and shares its results with the rest of the class in
an argument-based discussion. The demonstrated inquiry takes a class period of 30 to 45
minutes to complete, while the follow-up inquiry and the argumentation portion of the
discussion may take one class period apiece.
For a structured inquiry lesson, the teacher has the students at lab tables in small
groups of three or four. A lab sheet is distributed to each of the groups as the teacher
provides an overview of the investigation. The teacher reads the directions and answers
any questions the students may have about the procedure. The question to be studied is
provided to the students on the laboratory worksheet, along with a list of the supplies
and materials needed, as well as the steps to follow. A structured inquiry lab may look
like the following:
Question: How does the type of soil affect the drainage rate of water?
Materials:
•• Four samples of soil (e.g., topsoil, clay, sand, loam, peat moss)
•• Ring stand and ring clamp
•• 250-mL beakers
•• Large funnel
•• Filter paper or coffee filters
•• Graduated cylinder
•• Water
•• Triple-beam or electronic balance
109
Procedure:
1. Set up the ring stand as shown.
2. Place a large funnel in the ring clamp.
3. Fold a piece of filter paper to fit within the funnel.
4. Place a collecting beaker under the funnel.
5. Measure 200 grams of topsoil.
6. Place the 200-gram sample of topsoil in the funnel.
7. Measure 100 mL of water.
8. Pour the 100 mL of water into the funnel over the topsoil sample.
9. Wait 5 minutes.
10. Measure the amount of water in the collecting beaker. Record your results in
your science journal.
11. Choose one other soil type. Repeat the procedure for the soil type you chose
and be prepared to argue with supporting evidence how the two types of soil
differed in their drainage rates.
12. Based on the findings from all the groups for all the samples tested in the
class, formulate an explanation as to the relationship between the type of soil
and its drainage rate.
As the students work on the lab, the teacher circulates among the groups and provides
assistance in answering their questions and listening for any misconceptions that may
emerge. In completing this activity, the students experience a hands-on structured inquiry
with many opportunities to observe, make mathematical measurements, manipulate materi-
als, record data, and draw conclusions. As with the time requirement for the demonstrated
inquiry, this activity takes a class period of 30 to 45 minutes to complete, while the follow-up
inquiry and the argumentation portion of the discussion may take one class period apiece.
For a guided, teacher-initiated inquiry, the teacher poses the question, “How does the
type of soil affect the drainage rate?” and challenges students to formulate a procedure to
answer the question. Notice in this question, the teacher does not mention the drainage
of water—that component is left for the student to figure out. With many different soil
samples available (some with large particles and others with smaller particles), the stu-
dents are encouraged to first brainstorm the question in small groups and then decide on
an investigation to perform. Each group member discusses the assumptions he or she
brings to the lab about soil size and drainage rates. Together, the group writes a hypoth-
esis and a plan for testing their prediction. Once the plan is completed and approved by
the teacher, the students are free to get whatever materials they need to carry out their
strategy and collect evidence to test their hypothesis. For this lab, the teacher may choose
to substitute a 2-liter plastic bottle for more expensive equipment and glassware.
If the students have difficulty designing an investigation on their own, the teacher
may decide to first do a demonstrated inquiry using one type of soil sample as a model
Figure 6.4
and then have students do a follow-up guided inquiry by choosing another soil sample
to test. This gets us back to the need for scaffolding. Again, the direction the lesson takes
depends on the prior experience and needs of the students.
During the lab, the teacher circulates from group to group and listens in on their dis-
cussions. Again, the teacher listens to comments made by the students that would reveal
any misconceptions about drainage rates and provides additional prompts to test any
naive conceptions that arise. The teacher poses further questions for the students to con-
sider and has additional inquiries available for groups who complete their investigation
early. In line with the time requirement for the previous examples, students prepare to
argue with supporting evidence how the two types of soil differed in their drainage rates
and, based on the findings from all the groups for all the samples tested in the class, for-
mulate an explanation as to the relationship between the type of soil and its drainage rate.
As an estimate, this lab takes one or two class periods to complete, with the argumenta-
tion portion of the discussion taking one additional class period.
For a self-directed, student-initiated inquiry, the teacher assesses prior knowledge
and uncovers misconceptions by asking students to share what they already know about
soil and drainage rates. The teacher records their experiences by listing them on the
board. Next, the teacher allows time for self-directed exploration in which students
observe online videos about different soils and their drainage patterns. During this explo-
ration stage, the teacher encourages students to raise their own personal questions and
inquiries about drainage rates and suggests that they phrase their inquiries as “What if,”
“I think,” or “I wonder” statements. Depending on the preferences of the class, the
111
teacher asks the groups to share their questions while making a list of their ideas on the
board. Following this exercise, the teacher would identify each question as
•• one that is ready to be answered through an investigation,

•• one that needs to be revised and/or rewritten before it can be investigated, or
•• one that requires an outside “expert” or resource to answer.
It is important for students to classify their questions into these categories to further
understand the direction their questions will take them. For example, questions starting
with “why” usually require an explanation to answer. These “why” questions often need
to be revised into “what” or “what if . . .” questions before they can be investigated.
Sufficient materials and supplies are available at a supply center for groups to use as
needed. The students brainstorm ways to solve their questions and then set about carry-
ing out their plans. The teacher rotates from group to group, asking more questions and
clarifying students’ ideas and prior conceptions about the soil samples. The teacher
encourages the groups to write down other questions that come up during the course of
their investigations. At the end of the lesson, the teacher brings all the groups together so
they can share their observations and conclusions. Each group is given time to get up in
front of the class and state the question they investigated and the results they discovered,
as well as apply the phenomenon studied to situations outside the classroom. Each group
states a claim from the findings and supports the claim with evidence. Explanations are
then formulated and communicated as to the concept being studied.
Each of the four approaches has definite advantages, and of course each teacher could
plan and implement the lesson differently from the way expressed here. Demonstrated
inquiries reduce the time requirement and ensure that each student has the same oppor-
tunity to observe the same concept being studied in the same way. The structured inquiry
lab format serves two purposes: It allows the teacher to have all the students arrive at the
same conclusion together, and it provides a means to model a procedure for follow-up
guided inquiries. Both teacher-initiated and student-initiated inquiries are excellent
instructional strategies for getting students to consider ways to plan and solve problems.
These inquiries provide a means for students to empower themselves by directing the
course of their own work.
The four stages are summarized in Figure 6.5.
Figure 6.5 Expanded Invitation to Inquiry Grid
Self-Directed or
Posing the Teacher Teacher Teacher Student

Question
Planning the Teacher Teacher Student Student

Procedure
Formulating the Teacher Student Student Student

Results
(Continued)
(Continued)
Self-Directed or
The Question Predetermined Predetermined Posed by teacher Posed by student
The Plan or Predetermined Predetermined Designed by Designed by

Procedure student student
The Outcome Predetermined Expected Guided Open-ended
The Time 5–30 min. 30–60 min. 45–60+ min. 60–120+ min.
The Role of the Motivator Coach Facilitator Mentor

Teacher
The Role of the Observer Direction follower Problem solver Researcher

Student
The Materials Provided Provided Suggested Suggested
The Content Focused Focused Needs some Requires focusing

focusing
In this chapter, we looked at ways to categorize science experiences ranging from

demonstrated to student-initiated inquiries. As you design your yearlong plans, the
Inquiry Grid can serve as a way to move students toward more self-directed experiences.
In your journey to becoming an inquiry-based high school science teacher, you con-
sciously plan a gradual shift from left to right in the Inquiry Grid, ensuring that your
students develop the requisite skills for becoming scientifically literate citizens.
Differentiated Science Inquiry

As you just read, the Invitation to Inquiry grid offers a means of distinguishing the various
approaches (or levels) to science inquiry. But it also serves an additional role—as a blueprint
for differentiating learning strategies in planning instruction. While the grid implies a
“whole-class” approach to inquiry (meaning all the students in the class are given the same
inquiry approach for the same lesson), teachers, once they become proficient in inquiry-
based teaching, can move on to the next phase of inquiry teaching by differentiating the
level of science inquiry within the same lesson. In Differentiated Science Inquiry (Llewellyn,
2011), teachers who have become experienced and savvy with inquiry are encouraged to
take the next step in their journey by constructing a science investigation with multiple
approaches built into the lesson. When teachers do that, each student can select an approach
that is developmentally appropriate for his or her preferred learning style—whether it’s
visual, auditory, tactile, or kinesthetic. Whereas some students may prefer doing a struc-
tured inquiry, others may prefer doing a guided or a self-directed inquiry.
Picture Ms. Nolan, an 11th-grade physics teacher with 25 students in her third period
physical science class. You may recall the discussion you read in Chapter 5 that she had
with two of her students, Christy and Kara. Let’s return to that lesson. Ms. Nolan recog-
nizes that her students have different needs when it comes to completing a science lab.
About half of the class prefers to do a lab that spells out exactly what is expected of them.
These students like the lab procedures presented in an easy-to-follow, sequential format.
About a quarter of the students prefer being given a problem to solve or a question to
answer and finding the solution on their own. And the remaining quarter of the class
113
prefers to take ownership of their own question and design a means to test their own
perceptions. In an attempt to satisfy all the various needs and preferences, Ms. Nolan
occasionally modifies an investigation based on three approaches to inquiry: structured,
guided, and self-directed. After a brief introduction, she allows the students to choose the
approach that best fits their individual needs and need for structure (see Figure 6.6). A
student then pairs with one or two other students who have chosen the same approach.
They form a lab team and complete the inquiry as a group. Through this approach,
Ms. Nolan acknowledges that “one size does not fit all” and that choice is a strong intrin-
sic motivator for secondary school students as they complete assignments. Regardless of
the approach chosen, at the end of the inquiry, all students are responsible for learning
the same concepts. In this case, the approaches the students choose to get to the under-
standing vary, but the knowledge gained is the same for all groups.
Figure 6.6
Introduction
Structured Guided Self-Directed

Inquiry Inquiry Inquiry
Ms. Nolan uses the differentiated-inquiry method in several ways based on the topic
and the nature of the investigation. At times, she presents an introduction to a topic and
allows students to choose one of several structured inquiries to complete (see Figure 6.7).
This tactic works best when there are several variables that students believe can affect the
outcome of an investigation. For example, in a unit of motion energy, students are study-
ing the factors that affect the swing of a pendulum. In this situation, Ms. Nolan allows
students to choose which variable they want to test. Here students can choose to test the
mass of the object at the end of the pendulum, the distance the object is pulled back and
released, or the length of the string. Once all the investigations are completed, the groups
present their findings to the rest of the class and discuss the test procedures and results.
Figure 6.7
Introduction
Structured Structured Structured

Inquiry #1 Inquiry #2 Inquiry #3
At other times, she may introduce a topic by having all students first complete a struc-
tured inquiry. This structured inquiry serves as a model for a laboratory technique being
introduced or focuses on specific laboratory procedures new to the students. Next, she
will provide three versions of a follow-up guided inquiry, where again the students
choose which guided inquiry they want to complete (see Figure 6.8). After all the guided
inquiries are finished, students share their results and provide explanations to reinforce
the concept being studied. With Differentiated Science Inquiry, regardless of the level the
student chooses, in the end, all students arrive at the same common understanding of the
concept or standard being studied.
Figure 6.8
Structured
Inquiry
Guided Guided Guided

Inquiry #1 Inquiry #2 Inquiry #3
In the following case studies, we will read how two high school science teachers use
extended and differentiated inquires to motivate students and to scaffold them toward
more self-directed learning and opportunities for argumentation.
Case Study 1: Bottle Ecosystems

According to McComas (2005),
Scientists rarely conduct investigations in which the solution is assured within an

hour or so. In contract, students typically work in the laboratory with the
expectation that an answer will be achieved quickly by simply following the
directions. To counter this view, students should have opportunities to engage in
long-term investigations and explore phenomena that simply cannot be observed
in one or two class periods. (p. 25)
Not all scientific inquiries are designed to be completed in one or two classroom periods.
Inquiry investigations can be protracted and sustained over several months or even the
entire school year. Knowing that biology students have an interest in plant and animal
interactions, an experienced biology and environmental science teacher, Mr. Jay Costanza,
uses and recycles 2-liter plastic soda bottles to engage his 10th- and 11th-grade biology
students in designing environments for observing ecological interactions and succession
over an extended time.
115
Mr. Costanza is a veteran teacher of 15 years and has been teaching through inquiry-
based strategies his entire career. With a background in project-based instruction, Mr.
Costanza teaches biology, environmental science, and advanced placement biology at a
midsized urban high school. He also involves his students in an Adopt-a-Stream pro-
gram; they take samples from a nearby creek to test and monitor water quality and assess
the overall health of the creek over time.
Because biological inquiries, like succession, are inherently longer, Mr. Costanza
designs the course curriculum from the macroscopic level (ecology) to the micro-
scopic level (cell biology and genetics), with students beginning their extended
inquiry into ecology during the first week of school. By beginning the biological and
ecological inquiry in September, Mr. Costanza feels he establishes a tone for the
remainder of the year that introduces students to the themes of interdependency and
succession.
Using the book Bottle Biology (Wisconsin Fast Plants Program, 2003) and the Web site
www.bottlebiology.org, Mr. Costanza introduces students to the idea of inquiry at the
start of the school year. He initiates this low-cost inquiry with two essential starter ques-
tions: (a) What are the life processes that are essential to all living organisms? (b) What
are the conditions to sustain life? He does this by first providing a scenario where stu-
dents design a biosphere on the surface of Mars, then later has students apply their
research in designing an actual plastic-bottle ecosystem.
The Bottle Ecosystem unit incorporates the following standards which align with A
Framework for K−12 Science Education (NRC, 2012):
Practices
•• Systems and system models

•• Matter and energy: Flows, cycles, and conservation
Core Ideas
•• LS2.A—Interdependent relationships in ecosystems

•• LS2.B—Cycles of matter and energy transfer through ecosystems
To start the extended inquiry, Mr. Costanza arouses students’ curiosity by first posting
a large picture of the surface of Mars in the front of the room. As students enter the
classroom on Day 1 of the inquiry, a video from the Discovery Channel is showing
mechanical robots collecting rock samples from the surface of the Red Planet. As the
students settle into their seats, Mr. Costanza begins. “What is life?” he asks. “What is a
living thing?” Holding a rock in one outstretched hand and a piece of coral in the other,
he asks, “Is this rock alive? Is this piece of coral alive?”
After a brief discussion on the meaning of life, Mr. Costanza continues. “If you were
to live on Mars for an extended amount of time, what would you need to survive? Can
you think of a time in your life when you were far away from home and felt extremely
cold, thirsty, lonely, or frightened? What did that feel like? Now imagine being an astro-
naut on the surface of Mars where there is no air, food, water, warmth, plants, or other
animals. How could you survive? What would you need to stay alive?” As Mr. Costanza
walks about the room, he continues, “We have been given a special assignment by NASA.
Your task is to design a biosphere that would sustain humans living on the surface of
Mars for 18 months. I will now pass out the letter from NASA and you can read it quietly
to yourself.” The letter reads as follows:
Date: September 10, 2012

To: The Biology Students in Room 246
From: Dr. Sharon Austin, Director of Destination Mars
Congratulations! Your class has been selected to participate in a top-secret
program for NASA named Destination Mars. Because our government is
considering the possibility of establishing a colony on Mars, your mission is to
design a biosphere that will allow a group of 10 astronauts to survive on the
planet Mars for 18 months. Your first assignment for Destination Mars will be to
gather members of a team and form a “think tank.” The objective of the think tank
is to decide what is needed to sustain life on the planet Mars, ultimately making
this program a success. You can submit your designs as a poster or electronically
as a PowerPoint presentation. During the project, you will be briefed by your
biology teacher, Mr. Costanza, as to the specifics of the mission. Good luck, and
remember, the success of this program depends upon you!
Mr. Costanza now makes online resources and books available to students regarding
conditions on Mars. Several students use the following NASA Web site for obtaining
information about Mars and the rover Curiosity:
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/index.cfm
The students are given several days to do their research. Although some time is spent
in the classroom, most of the students’ research is done in the school library, online, or at
home as homework. In class, teacher-led discussions focus on the two initial questions:
(a) What are the life processes that are essential to all living organisms? (b) What are the
conditions necessary to sustain life?
After several days of researching information, the groups are ready to share their
designs. One at a time, the groups come to the front of the class and present their projects.
As they compare and contrast the designs, students discuss the similarities and differ-
ences among the designs.
Mr. Costanza now informs the students that they will use the research they discov-
ered about the needs of living organisms from the Mars project to build an actual living
model of an ecosystem from 2-liter plastic bottles. He tells the students that not only
will they identify what living things need; they’ll have to prove it! “Your next respon-
sibility as a research ecologist,” Mr. Costanza continues, “is to use one or more 2-liter
plastic bottles to design a living chamber that will keep a fish or other animal alive for
2 months. You can use sand; gravel; small rocks; soil; snails; aquatic plants like duck-
weed (Lemna), fanwort (Cabomba), or hortwort (Ceratophyllum); and pond water to build
your mini-ecosystem.”
117
Actually, Mr. Costanza knows that most containers will last longer than 2 months. In
fact, some may last as long as 5−6 months, but that is all part of the inquiry, to keep stu-
dents engaged and involved.
“You mean we have to design a container using plastic bottles to keep something alive
for 2 months?” Eugene asks.
“That’s impossible!” Karen adds. “Come on, how can we do that?”
“Well,” Mr. Costanza says, “start first with a fish, say a guppy, and then later consider
adding other organisms like a worm or a cricket.”
Another student asks, “What do guppies eat? What are we supposed to feed them?
How do I find out what a cricket eats?”
“Well,” Mr. Costanza responds, “that’s all part of being a scientist. We have to do
research just like in the Mars project.”
Students begin by brainstorming various designs to construct their bottle ecosystems.
One group decides to place a hole in the top of the bottle to monitor temperature and
dissolved oxygen, while another group centers on how to measure the pH of the water.
During the class’s brainstorming and design sessions, Mr. Costanza provides past copies
of Carolina Tips (a product magazine from the science supply company Carolina Biological
Supply) and suggests the Wisconsin Fast Plants Web site (www.fastplants.org) as
resources. Students also use other online resources to research their designs. For the
remainder of the period and into Day 2, the teacher conveys additional parameters of the
investigation. He tells the students they can experiment with their bottle designs for sev-
eral weeks to determine what works and what doesn’t work. Then, after 3 weeks, the
containers will be sealed, with nothing new to be added. “That’s when the 2-month clock
starts ticking,” he informs the class. Mr. Costanza then provides aquarium books, Internet
resources, scientific magazines and journals, biology textbooks, and other sources for the
groups to research the needs of living things.
Students are instructed to place their research notes and designs in their science jour-
nals, including a diagram and explanation of “how my bottle ecosystem works.” The
bottle designs vary. Some students choose conventional systems, while others choose to
connect two bottles, with one ecosystem supporting another.
Each day, the students continue to enter their observations and drawings in their
journals. As groups brainstorm their ideas, several students record what a fish or a guppy
needs to survive. One student’s entry indicates, “I found out that fish feed on elodea. That
may significantly improve its chances for survival.” Students consider other fish they are
familiar with, such as goldfish or betta fish.
After several days, students share their bottle designs by making posters from their
journal entries. Their prototypes enable them to test their ideas and share their designs in
front of the class. Mr. Costanza tells students that by sharing their models and ideas, they
should discuss limiting factors such as space, temperature, breeding concerns, and even
the interactions among the organisms in the ecosystem.
Some groups choose plants like grasses, while one selects green beans as their food
supply. During the discussion, one group mentions that it plans to place tap water in the
bottle; another group plans to get pond water. Other discussions center on the type of soil
to use—dirt versus clay or sand. Others share research discoveries regarding the feeding
habits of guppies, crickets, and earthworms. The teacher concludes the period by reiterat-
ing that the project is an inquiry into a design of trial and error.
Later in the week, the teacher introduces the class, by means of a formal presentation,
to the carbon dioxide/oxygen cycle and nitrogen cycle. During the presentation, concepts
including biosphere, abiotic and biotic factors, ecosystem, community, habitat, producer,
and consumer are discussed. Mr. Costanza asks the following questions: “Why is your
ecosystem considered a closed system, why did we use a closed system for this activity,
and why is light required in the bottle ecosystem?”
Now, the inquiry turns its attention toward discussing how students would monitor
pH, temperature, and dissolved oxygen rates. Some students suggest using probes and
spreadsheets to collect and record data over the 2 months.
By this time, students are eager to begin construction of their bottle ecosystems. At the
start of Day 6, students use their scale drawings from their journals to cut plastic bottles
and assemble their ecosystem structures, as shown in Figure 6.9.
Figure 6.9
Upon completion, the students add the fish, plants, and other organisms to the con-
tainers, creating ecosystems. For 2 weeks, the students observe the bottle environment
daily, monitor the conditions, and record appropriate data. They update spreadsheets and
record notes in their journals. The students now have 2 weeks to observe their structure
and make modifications. During this time, students assess, through trial and error, the
capacity of their structure to sustain life over an extended period of time.
During this 2-week experimentation period, some students discover that food sup-
plies are not sufficient for all the organisms and thus make revisions to their model.
Others conclude that crickets have difficulty existing in a confined chamber without the
constant addition of an outside food supply. All these conclusions eventually result in
revisions in the structure of the experimental chamber or changes in the choice of organ-
ism to be placed in the structure.
After 2 weeks, the ecosystem containers are closed.
119
At the completion of the Bottle Ecosystem investigation, all students are expected to
be able to do the following:
•• Explain why their structure is considered a closed ecosystem

•• Identify biotic and abiotic factors in their ecosystems
•• Identify the following organisms in their ecosystem: producer, primary consumer,
and decomposer
•• Explain how carbon, oxygen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water are cycled
through their respective ecosystems
•• Create a diagram of a food chain or energy pyramid and a food web from their
ecosystem
Case Study 2: The Finger Lakes Regional

Stream Monitoring Network
As teachers continue their journey into inquiry-based teaching and learning, they realize that
the inquiry experience can extend beyond the classroom walls. This is especially true for
teachers of biology, environmental science, and earth science. These teachers broaden their
view of the laboratory by using zoos, museums, local parks, wooded areas, streams, wet-
lands, and the greater school community as a workshop for investigating the natural world.
Stream and wetland inquiries offer many possibilities for interdisciplinary projects
where high school students investigate environmental, chemical, and physical aspects of
an eco-community. Furthermore, such inquiries give students opportunities to integrate
earth science into the field investigations by studying how land use of the immediate area
affects the water quality of the environment. Earth science can be incorporated into an
ecological study by using topographic maps of the community in observing how the sur-
rounding terrain can affect water-quality conditions of the stream or wetland.
With inquiries like these, students (a) choose a relevant question to investigate;
(b) collect appropriate data; (c) organize their findings on graphs and tables; (d) communi-
cate their conclusions, claims, and supportive evidence; and (e) propose explanations about
the relationship of the parameters being studied to the overall health of the stream or
wetland. In addition, students use technology such as software interface with probes and
sensors to discover cyclical patterns and relationships among the parameters. One such
program that adds relevance to students’ learning is the Finger Lakes Regional Stream
Monitoring Network. We will read how the program’s experiences lead to a high level of
understanding and appreciation for the local environment and aquatic systems. In becom-
ing aware of the environmental impact of chemicals on our water system, students further
develop the eco-awareness and eco-consciousness of a scientifically literate citizen.
The activities in the Finger Lakes Regional Stream Monitoring Network (FLRSMN)
align with A Framework for K–12 Science Education (NRC, 2012) for the standards:
Practices
•• Asking questions •• Analyzing and interpreting data
•• Planning and carrying out •• Constructing explanations
investigations
•• Systems and system models
•• Matter and energy: flows, cycles, and conservation
Core Ideas
•• LS2.A—Interdependent relationships in ecosystems

•• LS2.B—Cycles of matter and energy transfer through ecosystems
The Finger Lakes Regional Stream Monitoring Network is an environmental program

of the Finger Lakes Institute based at Hobart and William Smith Colleges in Geneva, New
York. Geneva sits atop Seneca Lake, one of the 11 glacial lakes formed by North America’s
last ice age over 12,000 years ago in the Finger Lakes watershed of upstate New York. The
institute strives to promote the importance of protecting the local water quality and
ultimately the water supply for the 14-county region of central-western New York.
According to Myers, Cushman, and Youngman (2011), stream monitoring—which
includes water quality analysis, assessment of the physical habitat and calculating the
population of microorganisms—is an important component of understanding the general
health of a watershed. By using monitoring protocols developed by the FLRSMN, science
teachers in grades 7−12 from surrounding schools invite their students to investigate a
local stream, collect data using protocols, and submit the data to the FLRSMN as part of
a comparative study of streams across the Finger Lakes area. Over the years, the data
provide valuable insight as to the health of local streams that feed into the Finger Lakes.
For more information about the Finger Lakes Institute and the Regional Stream
Monitoring Network see http://www.hws.edu/fli/stream_monitoring.aspx.
The FLRSMN involves three protocols for assessing the overall environmental condi-
tions and health of a stream: microorganism sampling, chemical analysis of stream water,
and a physical assessment of a stream bank, substrate, and surrounding terrestrial condi-
tions. These protocols constitute the data collection process and are written in two levels
or tiers. Tier 1 provides a basic introduction to a stream’s health, whereas Tier 2 provides
more in-depth analysis specifically designed for high school grades.
One teacher participating in the stream monitoring program is Mrs. Lindsay Orzel, an
8th-grade physical science and 9th-grade earth science teacher at Hammondsport High
School in Hammondsport, New York. Hammondsport High School overlooks the
Y-shaped Keuka Lake, the southernmost of the 11 Finger Lakes. At Hammondsport, Mrs.
Orzel teaches all the 8th- and 9th-grade science classes, which means an easy transition
for both the students and Mrs. Orzel as they move into 9th grade. Mrs. Orzel already
knows the students’ learning needs. It takes her less time to get acquainted with students
at the beginning of the 9th grade and affords her more instructional time to engage stu-
dents in the stream project, which she extends over 2 years.
Mrs. Orzel is one of over 25 teachers participating in the program. These teachers
represent urban, suburban, and rural schools in the greater Finger Lakes region. Before
starting the stream monitoring program, she attended a full-day orientation session held
by FLRSMN staff to introduce teachers to the protocols and other available environmen-
tal resources. One major attraction of the program is the lending materials kit for partici-
pating teachers, which provides supplies and equipment not readily available in all
schools. The kit includes meter reels, stopwatches, dip nets, hand magnifiers, invertebrate
identification cards, buffer solutions, and LaMotte chemical analysis supplies. The kit
also contains Vernier sensors and probes, along with the software interface for analyzing
the collected water samples.
After the orientation, Mrs. Orzel plans a spring stream project for her 8th graders,
followed by a fall stream project for her 9th graders. Since the 8th graders are new to the
project, Mrs. Orzel plans a more teacher-directed introduction to the use of probes. With
121
a structured format, students first practice handling and using the instruments in the
classroom. They then move on to the field study at Cold Brook, an inlet to Keuka Lake.
Here students put their new skills to use and collect data using the Tier 1 protocols. At the
stream, tests include measuring water temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and chlorine
and nitrate levels. Students also observe bank vegetation and identify the diversity of
microorganisms found in the stream.
Mrs. Orzel uses the field excursion as a time to collect data from the stream. Later,
back in the classroom, students will analyze the data and draw conclusions as to the over-
all health of the stream. She has the 8th-grade students place their data on Excel sheets,
the same format they will use when they return as 9th graders. This allows for consis-
tency and ease in comparing one season’s data to the next.
Whereas the 8th grade emphasis is on introducing the use of sensors and probes and
collecting and analyzing water samples taken from the field, the 9th grade emphasis is on
stream flow and the impact of the stream on the local environment, streambeds, and
banks. For grade 9, Mrs. Orzel plans a geological and environmental focus to supplement
the earth science curriculum. Earth science related topics include stream concentration on
the physical habitat, current weather conditions and their impact on the stream, current
flow, turbidity, an assessment of bank erosion, and the presence or absence of stream
substrate—such as silt/mud, sand, gravel, cobbles, boulders, or bedrock. The stream
monitoring also reinforces earth science skills, such as (a) calculating density; (b) graph-
ing; (c) determining the relationships among the velocity, slope, sediment size, channel
shape, and volume of a stream; (d) analyzing the depositional-erosional progression of a
stream; and (e) debating the effect of human activities as they relate to quality of life in a
stream environment.
At 9th grade, the students return to the same Cold Brook site to again collect samples
and determine how the stream has changed from the spring (when the students were 8th
graders) to the fall (when they are now 9th graders). Mrs. Orzel poses the overall ques-
tion, “How are the parameters of the stream that were measured in the spring different
from those now measured in the fall?” To answer the question, Mrs. Orzel has a twist for
the 9th-grade classes. Rather than providing a structured assignment, she asks students
to choose one parameter to test at the stream and compare the findings from the previous
spring to the fall. Students are also encouraged to generate their own follow-up questions
based on the parameter they choose to investigate. By design, the 9th-grade stream study
is more individualized and more research based. As students investigate the question,
What parameters have changed that affect the stream quality? one student chooses to ask
the question, How does the change in pH alter the number of organisms and the overall
stream quality? Comparing two sets of data, another student asks, What are the changes
of the stream parameters from spring to fall? and What are the implications of the
changes? Other inquiries involve asking, How does the increase in temperature from the
spring to the fall affect dissolved oxygen and nitrogen levels? How does the increase in
vegetation from the spring to the fall affect the overall microorganism population of the
stream? or How does the reduction on the stream discharge or velocity from spring to fall
affect the overall status of the stream? In addition, Mrs. Orzel tells the students that they
will use the Internet and school library to further study the parameter they choose and be
able to present their findings and defend their speculations, conclusions, and claims with
supported evidence to the rest of the class. In this assignment, students are introduced to
the notion of scientific argumentation as they hone their communication skills.
There are definite advantages to being part of an extended inquiry like the Finger
Lakes Regional Stream Monitoring Network. In gathering data, students feel part of a
larger ongoing research project, knowing their data will be part of a sizable study examin-
ing the overall health of streams in the Finger Lakes region. Participation also opens the
door for having students engage in follow-up discussions that allows them to practice the
art of scientific argumentation. Here students speculate as to why the parameters change
from season to season by providing an explanation and presenting reports in the class.
Extended inquiries also encourage students to use online resources to supplement the
investigations they plan.
As Mrs. Orzel becomes enthusiastic because of the involvement students display
during the stream inquiries, the 10th-grade biology teacher, Ms. Kim Voss, is also plan-
ning to continue the stream project into a third year. When the earth science students go
on to biology, Ms. Voss proposes to use the project to reinforce topics in biology and ecol-
ogy. But rather than returning to Cold Brook, Ms. Voss will have 10th graders visit a
wetland community with a slow-moving stream called Guyanoga Creek running through
it. Both teachers think this is an interesting location for the biology students since
Guyanoga Creek is the outlet to Keuka Lake. This way students can collect data and com-
pare water entering the lake at Cold Brook and exiting the lake at Guyanoga Creek.
During year three of the study, biology students will not only apply the process skills
developed in the prior 2 years with Mrs. Orzel but will also deepen and expand their
scientific repertoire using a Tier 2 protocol. This seems entirely prudent since the Tier 2
protocols involve more emphasis on determining the number and distribution of micro-
organisms and the impact the stream conditions have upon the species. During this com-
prehensive investigation, students will evaluate the environmental health of the wetland
using the degree of biological diversity, associated water qualities, and surrounding soil
compositions as the defining criteria. Like they did as 9th graders, the biology students
will select a parameter to research and then go to the wetland community, take samples
from various locations, compare their findings, and analyze the ecological implications of
their collective results.
Planning extended environmental investigations allows students to engage in differ-
ent levels of science inquiries—from structured to more self-directed. There are many
online resources that help plan stream monitoring activities. Two excellent Web sites are
the Utah State University’s Cooperative Extension and the Wyoming Stream Team. For
the Utah State University’s Cooperative Extension, go to the home page at http://exten-
sion.usu.edu/waterquality. On the left hand side click “Educator Resources.” Then go to
“Lesson Plans/Manuals.” Click “Stream Side Science” and then click “Stream Side
Science Lesson Manual.” Or go directly to the Stream Side Science Lesson Manual at
https://extension.usu.edu/waterquality/htm/educator-resources/lessonplans/sss/sss-
manual/. You can download a free copy of individual chapters and activities. Other
excellent print and online resources are listed on the Web site. This resource has an earth
science emphasis. Mrs. Orzel frequently used this Web site to supplement her in-class
stream project instruction.
The Wyoming Stream Team site outlines a statewide educational stream monitoring
program involving students, teachers, and other volunteers who collect water quality,
physical, and biological data on Wyoming’s waterways. You can locate the resource at
http://wyomingstreamteam.org/. Click “Resources” on the left side, then click “Wyoming
Stream Team Program Manual” to copy activities in a pdf format.
Project Watershed at http://projectwatershed.org/ is another Web site that can pro-
vide assistance to teachers who are planning a stream monitoring project.
A fourth resource, although not specific to stream monitoring, is Field Investigations:
Using Outdoor Environments to Foster Student Learning of Scientific Processes. This manual
123
was developed by the Pacific Education Institute and provides a framework for preparing
students to conduct field investigations. The suggestions outlined in the manual can eas-
ily be applied to any stream or wetland community and are especially useful in showing
how teachers can guide students in proposing questions to investigate. This resource can
be found at www.pacificeducationinstitute.org/resources/research/.

and Discussion
1. What are the benefits of engaging students in extended investigations like Bottle
Ecosystems or stream monitoring?
2. What are the benefits of engaging students in extended investigations that integrate
biology and ecology with other areas of science?
3. In your experience, what helps students sustain engagement in extended, ongoing
investigations?
4. In the Bottle Ecosystems case study, the teacher wanted to set the tone for inquiry
at the beginning of the school year. What are some advantages and disadvantages
to using this approach so early in the school year?
5. What content and skills should be included in the student assessment at the end of
the Bottle Ecosystems investigation? At the end of the stream monitoring investiga-
tion? How would you assess the content and skills you identified?
6. What additions would you suggest to supplement both case studies with an
emphasis on argumentation?
7
Modifying a Lab Activity
Into an Inquiry- and
Argument-Based
Investigation
The Role of the Laboratory in Science

Despite the perennial concern in science over high-stakes testing, sagging achievement
scores with international comparisons, and the rising costs of materials and equipment,
doing laboratory work in high school science classes is now and has always been an inte-
gral aspect of developing scientifically literate students. As early as the end of the 19th
century, Thomas Huxley embraced the importance of the laboratory experience. As
Huxley (1899) put it (with apologies for the gender reference),
In teaching him botany, he must handle the plants and dissect the flowers for him-
self: in teaching him physics and chemistry, you must not be solicitous to fill him
with information, but you must be careful that what he learns he knows of his own
knowledge. Don’t be satisfied with telling him that a magnet attracts iron. Let him
see that it does; let him feel the pull of the one upon the other for himself. (p. 127)
Today, however, with the rising cost of new technical and scientific equipment, the
extra time needed to schedule labs, and the additional space needed for science labs, high
school teachers are sometimes called upon to defend the need for the laboratory experi-
ence. In times of shrinking economies, many teachers are faced with the following ques-
tions: (a) Why should high schools provide students with laboratory-based science
courses? (b) What role does the hands-on laboratory experience play in learning science
concepts?
124
MODIFYING A LAB ACTIVITY INTO AN INQUIRY- AND ARGUMENT-BASED INVESTIGATION
125
Numerous arguments support laboratory-based instruction:
1. Laboratory experiences develop and reinforce manipulative skills such as han-

dling equipment, hand-eye coordination, and sensorimotor skills. By manipulat-
ing scientific equipment and materials, students learn to manage technical skills
such as massing objects, using a microscope, staining samples on slides, tech-
niques, and performing titrations.
2. Laboratory experiences reinforce science process skills such as observing, classify-
ing, measuring, inferring, experimenting, and manipulating variables.
3. Laboratory experiences reinforce the practice of scientific argumentation, by
which students analyze their results, make speculations and claims based on sup-
porting evidence, and then go on to defend and justify their conclusions to their
peers.
4. Laboratory experiences enhance communication skills such as following direc-
tions, reading, speaking, listening, and writing lab and argument-based reports.
5. Laboratory experiences develop inquiry and investigation skills.
6. Laboratory experiences reinforce organizational skills as well as group responsi-
bility and collaboration.
7. Laboratory experiences reinforce concepts from the lecture/discussion portion of
the class and extend learning to the problem-solving level.
8. Laboratory experiences support cognitive skills, critical thinking, problem solv-
ing, scientific reasoning, and higher-order thinking skills such as analysis, synthe-
sis, and evaluation.
9. Laboratory experiences provide opportunities to integrate science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM).
10. Laboratory experiences develop habits of mind and scientific attitudes such as
curiosity, risk taking, precision, skepticism, and confidence.
In America’s Lab Report (National Resource Council [NRC], 2006), the editors identify
a number of science learning goals that have been attributed to laboratory experiences,
including
•• enhancing mastery of subject matter,

•• developing scientific reasoning,
•• understanding the complexity and ambiguity of empirical work,
•• developing practical skills,
•• understanding the nature of science,
•• cultivating interest in science and interest in learning science, and
•• developing teamwork abilities. (p. 3)
Essentially, the laboratory links the concepts being studied with real-world applica-
tions. According to the National Research Council (2000a),
Designing and conducting a scientific investigation requires introduction to the

major concepts in the area being investigated, proper equipment, safety precautions,
assistance with methodological problems, recommendations for use of technolo-

gies, clarification of ideas that guide the inquiry, and scientific knowledge
obtained from sources other than the actual investigation. The investigation may
also require student clarification of the question, method, controls, and vari-
ables; student organization and display of data; student revision of methods and
explanations; and a public presentation of the results with a critical response
from peers. Regardless of the scientific investigation performed, students must
use evidence, apply logic, and construct an argument for their proposed expla-
nations. (p. 166)
In the end, the laboratory experience is a multifarious and circuitous process. To

become competent in experimentation and investigation, students need to understand the
problem being posed, the concept on which the experiment is predicated, and the lan-
guage on which the context of the procedure is based. When we talk about the language
of the procedure, we refer to the process by which inquiry occurs. That frequently is
referred to as the “scientific method.” And despite what some textbooks may assert, there
is no one scientific method. In actuality, different questions necessitate different means of
investigation. Inquiry seldom follows the step-by-step procedure prescribed by the regi-
men of the scientific method. The method does, however, provide an elementary, system-
atic, and sequential framework for understanding the complexity of an investigation.
The following 12 steps describe a typical or traditional scientific laboratory
experience:
1. State the problem or question to be investigated.

2. Identify all possible variables that could influence the outcome of the
investigation.
3. Construct a statement or hypothesis to test.
4. Identify the manipulating (independent) variable, responding (dependent)
variable, and controlled variables.
5. Design the procedure or steps to test the hypothesis.
6. Determine the supplies, material, and equipment necessary to do the investigation.
7. Carry out the investigation and acquire data.
8. Record and organize data on a table or a chart.
9. Construct a graph, label the axes, and provide a title for the graph.
10. Describe the relationship between the manipulating (independent) variable and
the responding (dependent) variable.
11. Draw a conclusion to determine the validity of the hypothesis.
12. Explain the results (usually done by answering questions provided at the end of
the lab).
New Approaches to Traditional Labs

Many teachers prefer doing traditional labs and prescribed activities with their students.
They are often more comfortable with this type of lesson because it is the way they were
127
taught. They may say, “I like that particular lab. I’ve been doing it for years,” or “I do it
because it’s in the textbook.” According to research from the U.S. Department of
Education, O’Sullivan and Weiss (1999), estimate that only one in three high school stu-
dents has the opportunity to design and carry out their own scientific investigations. As
a nation, we will never achieve scientific literacy with this kind of dismal data.
The purpose of this section is to provide the reader with suggestions for making tradi-
tional labs more inquiry and argument oriented. That is not to say that traditional labs don’t
have a purpose or place in the high school science curriculum. At times, such as the begin-
ning of the school year, when time is at a critical shortage, when students have not had prior
experience in designing inquiries on their own, or even when safety is an important issue,
it may be more appropriate to provide students with a directed laboratory experience.
Traditional labs are most often found at the end of the chapter in the course textbook.
The purpose of the lab may be to verify or confirm, through a hands-on experience, a
concept previously introduced in the chapter. Commonly referred to as “cookbook” labs,
these labs usually provide the student with the question to be investigated, the materials
to be used, a step-by-step procedure, safety precautions, a guide on how to organize the
data in a table or a chart, and leading questions for analyzing the data. When students do
cookbook labs, there is a degree of certainty and predictability in the conclusions. The
amount of time it takes to reach an outcome is unerringly anticipated. And the opportu-
nity for individual dissimilarity is substantially curbed.
Writing for The Science Teacher, Colburn (1996) stated that “you don’t have to abandon
these [cookbook] activities to make your teaching more inquiry based. There is a middle
ground between activities that are teacher directed and those that are almost totally stu-
dent centered” (p. 10). By making minor changes to the format and structure of the lab,
teachers can provide a transition into inquiry-based and self-directed learning.
Changing a traditional textbook lab into an inquiry- and argument-based investigation
can be relatively easy. It does not mean you have to give up the favorite labs you are already
using. Shiland (1999) suggests that meaningful learning does not occur when students
merely follow procedures identified in a prescribed lab. When you realize that cookbook
labs do not meet the instructional goals you have set for your students or that you are ready
to adapt some of your (or your textbook’s) existing activities, consider integrating into the
lab the Seven Segments of a Scientific Inquiry that you read about in Chapter 1.
What distinguishes a traditional lab from an inquiry-based lab lies in who’s respon-
sible for doing the steps. If the teacher (or the textbook) is providing most, if not all, of the
guidance to complete the lab, we can presume it’s more traditional. If the student is
responsible for designing most, if not all, of the steps, we can presume it’s more inquiry
based. If you go back to the steps of the traditional lab from the previous page, Steps 1
through 6 are usually presented to the student. In addition, the data table is often pro-
vided in Step 8, and sometimes a prelabeled graph is provided for Step 9.
A second distinction between traditional and inquiry-based labs is that in traditional
labs the emphasis in on following a prescribed set of steps to verify a predicted outcome,
whereas an inquiry lab focuses on collecting evidence to substantiate or refute a particu-
lar claim. This may sound trivial, but the differences between the two focus on the overall
goal the teacher embraces for the importance of learning science.
Given that premise, the following steps have been modified to integrate aspects of the
Seven Segments and are more characteristic of scientific inquiry and argumentation. Notice
the subtleties in the differences between this version and the one previously presented:
1. State the problem or question to be investigated.
2. Identify all possible variables that could influence the outcome of the investigation.
3. Construct a statement or hypothesis to test. Note, however, that not all investi-
gations require a hypothesis, or that the investigator may choose to consider
several hypotheses, thereby not being committed to any one set of predictive
results.
4. Identify the manipulating (independent) variable, responding (dependent) vari-
able, and controlled variables and decide whether a control group is needed for
the investigation.
5. Design the procedure or steps to test the hypothesis or hypotheses.
6. Determine the supplies, material, and equipment necessary to do the investigation.
7. Carry out the investigation and acquire relevant data.
8. Record and organize data on a table or a chart.
9. Construct a graph, label the axes, and provide a title for the graph.
10. Describe the relationship between the manipulating (independent) variable and
the responding (dependent) variable. Look for patterns within the data.
11. Draw a conclusion or claim to determine the validity of the hypothesis or
hypotheses.
12. Prepare a written or oral report, a PowerPoint presentation, or a trifold poster of
the claim and the evidence that supports the claim. Include the reasoning that
links the claim and the evidence together.
13. Communicate an explanation by way of a scientific argument that summarizes
the claim, evidence, and reasoning to peers. Defend and justify the claim with
supporting evidence. Allow peers to provide counterclaims to the findings and
discuss the implications of the claim to situations outside the classroom.
Making the modifications from a traditional lab to a more inquiry- and argument-
based lab can be uncomplicated once the teacher has a deep-rooted appreciation for the
transfer of ownership of the lab from the teacher (or textbook) to the student. The follow-
ing recommendations will also assist high school science teachers in modifying their
favorite time-honored labs that demonstrate the scientific method. These suggestions are
presented in order, starting from the beginning of the lab and working toward the end.
Realize that not all the suggestions will apply to all labs. It’s at the discretion of the
teacher to decide when the suggestion is appropriate for the lab.
Do a Prelab Assessment
Before actually starting the laboratory, constructivist and inquiry teachers want to
know students’ prior understandings about the topic or lab being investigated. In other
words, you want to gauge before you engage! By assessing prior knowledge, you may
uncover many naive conceptions and misconceptions. Determining students’ points of
reference for a lab will allow the inquiry-based teacher to make modifications in the way
the lab is presented so as to fit the students’ past experiences. Because it is likely that a
high school chemistry class will have a mixed proficiency when using scientific equip-
ment, knowing individual students’ prior knowledge will allow the teacher to make
accommodations for the diversity of students’ skills and abilities.
129
Do the Lab First

As mentioned earlier, in most textbooks, the lab is found near the end of the chapter.
The placement of the lab at the end of the chapter reinforces its purpose as a means to
confirm what was previously read. Resist the notion that students always need an under-
standing of certain concepts or facts before doing the lab. In some situations, you can give
the lab first and foster inductive learning methods. Begin by choosing an exploration or
a lab that is nonthreatening and highly motivating. The lab should require little prior
knowledge as a prerequisite for its completion. Think, in advance, of the kinds of prompts
and questions you will need to pose to students to lead them in the right direction. Use
the results of the lab to stir excitement about the topic you are now about to present. Refer
to the lab throughout your unit as a previous experience. The following is one example
of a general chemistry lab that needs minimal prior knowledge about percent composi-
tion, solubility, mass, mixtures, evaporation, and filtration to complete the investigation.
Most high school chemistry students have enough prior experience from their middle
school science courses to complete the lab with little or no assistance from the teacher. The
laboratory is called “Sugar and Sand.”
The Objectives of the Laboratory
1. To develop the ability to analyze and solve problems

2. To plan and perform a laboratory procedure to solve a problem
3. To select materials and equipment to carry out an investigation
The Task
Given a 100-gram sample of a mixture of sugar and sand, the student will plan and
perform a procedure that will determine the percent composition of the mass of the sugar
and sand mixture.
The Problem
What is the percentage of sugar and sand in a mixture?
The Situation
You are a laboratory technician and are presented with the problem of determining
the relative amounts of two compounds in a mixture. You are given a 100-gram sample
of a mixture of sand and sugar. Design a procedure to determine the percentage of the
mass of each of the two compounds in the sample. Once you have planned your investi-
gation, carry out the procedure and report your findings.
Materials and Equipment

The following materials and equipment are available for students. Additional materials,
not needed to complete the problem, may be added as distracters. This way, students will
have to understand the relative importance of the item in completing the lab:
•• Triple-beam balance •• Evaporating dish

•• Filter paper •• Ring stand
•• Funnel •• Stirring rods
•• Beaker •• Water
•• Heat source or drying oven
At the conclusion of this lab, the teacher can give a presentation on percent composi-
tion, solubility, mass, mixtures, evaporation, and filtration. During the presentation, as
the teacher introduces new concepts, he or she can refer back to the lab that the students
performed and discuss their results.
Revise the Question Section

If the lab provides a starter question to answer, as it usually does, remove it. Start by
demonstrating a discrepant event for students to observe. Allow the students to think of
questions to investigate from the discrepancy. Provide prompts and explorations to lead
students to the original question of the activity or lab. Allowing students to come up with
the question or problem makes the investigation more personal and meaningful to them.
This makes the activity more like a student-initiated inquiry. When designing a lesson
around the 5E Learning Cycle (introduced in Chapter 5), the Engagement or the
Exploration stage can provide an excellent starting point for inquiry-based investigations.
Inquiry can again be reintroduced during the Extension or Elaboration stage. Several
excellent resources for demonstrations and discrepant events are listed in the back of this
book.
Revise the Materials Section

If the lab provides a list of needed supplies and equipment, there are several alterna-
tives to consider. In the beginning, cut the list of needed supplies and equipment into
single strips or write them on small strips of paper (1 × 5 inches) and place them in a small
envelope. Include several unnecessary items in the set. Students will determine which
supplies and equipment are necessary and which are not. Later, you can provide a partial
list of the supplies and equipment, perhaps four of the eight items. Students will write in
the missing supplies and equipment. Eventually, students will be asked to list all the sup-
plies and equipment for the materials section. Eyster (2010) suggests that high school
teachers can create more student-centered labs by listing materials on a lab sheet into
three categories: (1) items that are essential to complete the investigation, (2) items that
the students might find useful, and (3) items that might spark further investigations. It
then becomes the students’ responsibility to decide which materials are necessary and
which ones are supplementary.
Remove the Safety Rules

Whether or not students design their own experimental procedures, they can always
be encouraged to write the safety rules and guidelines for the lab. Consider having stu-
dents align each safety rule to a particular step in the procedure. For example, if the lab
calls for heating a substance in an open test tube, the students would write a safety rule
connected to that specific step. You may find that students are more likely to follow a
safety procedure if they suggest it. Safety rules that are imposed are often opposed.
Revise the Procedure Section

This is a key area in modifying traditional labs. If the lab provides a step-by-step list
of procedures, there are several alternatives to make it more student centered. In the
beginning, cut the list of the individual steps in the procedure into single strips or write
131
the steps of a lab on small strips of paper (1 × 5 inches). Place the strips in a small enve-
lope. Give a set to each group of students. Have the students read the steps and put them
into a logical and sequential order. After a few labs, provide additional, unnecessary steps
in the set. Students will determine which steps are necessary and which are not. Later,
you can provide a partial list of the steps, say, four of the eight steps. Students will write
in the missing procedures and construct the lab. Eventually, students will design all the
steps for the procedure section. Allow students to brainstorm how they would design an
experiment to answer the original question, prediction, or hypothesis/hypotheses. This
makes the lab more like a guided inquiry.
Add Procedural Errors

Using the “Find My Mistakes” approach, Galus (2000) provides an incorrect experi-
mental procedure and has students find the error. According to Galus (2000),
Although students [are] not sure of the correct laboratory experiment necessary to
test something that interests them, they [are] experts at pointing out someone else’s
mistakes. [Thus] students become experts in critiquing the process and determining
the right way to complete an inquiry-based laboratory exercise. (pp. 30–31)
Take Away the Data Table and Graph

This suggestion is the first and foremost step in modifying a traditional lab. If the lab
provides a predetermined data table, remove it. Deciding what needs to be measured is
an important skill in doing any investigation. Have students determine how they will
record and organize the data they collect. If time permits, have students share their pro-
posed tables in small groups and compare the similarities and differences. Students will
construct meaning for the data when they design a way to organize and record their data
into a table. If they cannot formulate a data table, they probably do not understand the
significance and correlation of the variables being studied or may not have mastered the
skills for organizing data. By designing their own data tables, students demonstrate and
reinforce their understanding of the difference between the dependent and the indepen-
dent variables. The same suggestion goes for the graph. By high school, students in sci-
ence should be able to construct their own graphs based on the data collected. As with
the data table, if a graph is provided in the lab, take it out. For this suggestion the teacher
should have the data table and graph available on a separate sheet of paper and provide
it only when an individual has extreme difficulty in designing the table or graph.
Redesign the Results Section

Traditional textbook labs often provide space for brief, one- or two-sentence summa-
ries. As one means of improving students’ observation and communication skills, con-
sider replacing these questions with the requirement that students write a detailed,
narrative description of what they observed during the investigation. In the revised
results section, students can describe how their observations relate to the hypothesis and
reflect on the significance of the observations. Students then can predict what would hap-
pen if they changed one of the variables in the investigation.
In some cases, following the completion of a lab, the teacher has students write a
formal lab report. The report usually lists the question studied, the materials used, the
procedure followed, the data collected, a graph, and a summary of the results. In moving
toward scientific argumentation, the teacher may replace the traditional lab report with
an argument-based lab report described later in this chapter.
Add “Going Further” Inquiries to the End of the Lab

By adding “going further” inquiries to the end of the lab, you extend the experience
and use the lab as a springboard to inquiry. Allow students to raise follow-up “What
if . . .” and “I wonder . . .” questions to investigate. Consider testing other variables in the
original investigation. If, for example, biology students were investigating how the
amount of sunlight affected the growth rate of a plant, the teacher could prepare ques-
tions as prompts to start students thinking about other variables that affect the growing
rate of a plant. Individual groups of students could design additional inquiries to deter-
mine the effect of fertilizer on the growing rate. Others could test the amount of water,
the type of water, the color of the light, or the type of soil on growing conditions.
Look at the questions at the end of your labs and the ones provided in the textbook.
If the questions provide opportunities for students to analyze the data thoughtfully, but
not through additional inquiries, consider adding questions that engage students in more
inquiry-based investigations. With “going further” questions, students use the initiating
investigation to guide new inquiries. To save class time, we may be tempted to answer
these “end of the lab” questions orally through a class discussion. However, teachers will
find that when students actually do “going further” inquiries, concepts are solidified and
students have opportunities to explore and extend their understandings. Most important,
a “going further” investigation provides the students with opportunities to move from a
structured-inquiry lab to a guided or self-directed inquiry and facilitates their becoming
autonomous learners.
Modifying a Traditional Lab

Into an Inquiry-Based Lab
There are many benefits to a traditional lab. These labs are appropriate when students need
practice in following directions or when their prior experience with doing inquiry is negli-
gible. Sometimes safety is a concern, and other times there is just one way to perform the
lab. The following is a basic step-by-step lab that can be used to reinforce the concepts pre-
sented in a unit on density. Density was chosen as an example because it’s a science concept
that cuts across all science subject areas: biology, earth science, chemistry, and physics.
Purpose
In this lab, you will use a triple-beam balance to measure the mass, and you will use
the water displacement method to measure the volume of several rock samples to calcu-
late each rock’s density. At the end of the lab, you will describe the characteristics that
distinguish sedimentary from metamorphic rocks.
Question
How does the density of sedimentary rocks compare to that of metamorphic rocks?
Materials and Equipment
•• Sample set of rocks (sedimentary and metamorphic)

•• Magnifying lens
133
•• Triple-beam balance
•• 100-mL graduated cylinder large enough to hold each rock sample
•• Water
Procedure
1. Observe each of the four rock samples provided.

2. In the table provided, record the color and any distinguishing characteristic of each
rock sample.
3. Select one of the samples. Using a triple-beam balance, determine the mass of the
rock sample and place that number in the data table under the “mass” column for
that sample.
4. Using a graduated cylinder, determine the volume of the rock by filling the gradu-
ated cylinder up to the 20-mL mark. Then, gently lower the rock into the cylinder
by tilting the cylinder slightly on its side and sliding the rock down the cylinder.
Note the new level of the water with the rock in the cylinder. Subtract the original
level from the new level (20 mL) to determine the volume of the rock. Place that
number in the “volume” column for that sample.
5. Repeat the procedure for the three other samples. Record the mass and the volume
for each rock sample in the appropriate column of the data table.
6. After all the samples have been recorded, use the formula density = mass/volume
(or D = M/V) to calculate the density of each sample. Record the answer in the
“density” column of the data table for that rock.
7. After you record the data, use the rock identification guide to identify the type
(sedimentary or metamorphic) and the name of each of your samples. Place that
information in the last column of the data table.
Color and Mass Volume Density Rock Type/

Sample Number Characteristic (grams) (mL) (grams /mL) Name
1
2
3
4
Questions to Answer
1. How do the texture properties differ between the sedimentary rocks and the meta-
morphic rocks you observed?
2. How did the densities of the sedimentary rock samples compare to the densities of
the metamorphic rock samples?
3. Knowing that sedimentary rock can be transformed into metamorphic rock through
intense heat and pressure, how could this account for the difference in densities
between sedimentary and metamorphic rocks?
Addressing Misconceptions About Density

In Chapter 5, you read that high school students come to science class with varying concep-
tions about how the natural world works. Sometimes these prior conceptions align with the
universally accepted scientific explanation, and sometimes they don’t. When a student holds
ideas and notions that are in conflict with the scientific explanation, the ideas are frequently
labeled as misconceptions. The term misconception may be misleading since the student will
probably, in time, change his or her presently held understanding to the scientifically
accepted form. Maybe a better label would be naive conceptions or evolving conceptions.
Elementary school students develop an awareness of density years before the topic is
taught in middle or high school. Young children develop this understanding from their
everyday observations and experiences. A child may notice that two balls can be the same
size, yet one is heavier than the other. Such is the case when playing with a Styrofoam ball
and a baseball of the same size. However, those same observations and experiences can
generate many prior misconceptions about density as well. When 9th graders enter high
school, some may hold several misconceptions about density. Here are some examples:
•• “An object, such as a boat, floats because water is pushing up on it.”

•• “The weight of an object determines if it will sink or float. Heavy objects always
sink, and light objects always float.”
•• “Objects with holes in it will sink. Except for a sponge. That’s the only exception.”
•• “The smaller something is, the less density it has. So smaller objects are less dense
than larger objects.”
•• “If you cut a piece of wood in half, the density of each piece is now half of the
original piece.”
•• “Density is the thickness of something. Chocolate syrup is very dense because it’s
so thick and takes time to pour.”
•• “Oil weighs less than water. That’s why when an oil spill occurs, the oil floats on
top of the water.”
•• “Wood and plastic objects float. Metal objects sink.”
•• “If you take a ball of clay and add more clay to it, the ball will get larger and the
density will increase.”
•• “Elements with a higher atomic number are denser than elements with a lower
number.”
If students are to understand the concept of density and, in many cases, give up their
stubbornly held prior misconceptions, teachers should know that in spite of giving an
in-depth lecture on density, the authority of the teacher is not be enough to change stu-
dents’ misconceptions. What research says is more effective is providing students with
engaging and motivating opportunities that challenge their presently held conceptions.
We will see how inquiry plays an important role in helping students give up their mis-
conceptions and adopt a scientifically accepted understanding.
Scaffolding Toward Inquiry

The transfer of responsibility for learning takes prudent planning. As the ownership of
the task shifts from the teacher to the student, we need to be exceedingly clear about the
purpose of the learning activity. Teachers do this by communicating desired expectations
135
and learning objectives, as well as the accountability for success. These objectives become
embedded within the inquiry experience. Once we know how to scaffold investigations
from more teacher directed to more student centered, we move students along the con-
tinuum toward self-directed discovery. Let’s now see ways teachers can use the various
approaches to inquiry to help students develop sound understanding of density and
become proprietors of their learning.
Demonstrated Inquiries
As said before, a new unit can often begin with a demonstrated inquiry that ends in
a discrepancy between what the student thought would happen and what actually did.
These discrepant events provide a cognitive hook to engage the class at the start of the
unit. The following are several demonstrated inquiries that can be used to introduce a
unit of density.
Ice in an Unknown Liquid

Get two large clear plastic tumblers. From a separate container filled with water and
labeled “Liquid A,” fill one tumbler two-thirds of the way with Liquid A and set it aside.
From a separate container filled with 70% isopropyl alcohol (IPA) and labeled “Liquid B,”
fill the second tumbler two-thirds of the way with Liquid B. Do not tell students what the
liquids are. Place an ice cube in each of the tumblers. Ask students to share their observa-
tions and questions. Why is one ice cube floating and the other sinking? Is there a differ-
ence in the ice cubes? Is there a difference in the liquids? What is the density of the ice
cube? What is the density of Liquid A and Liquid B compared to the density of the ice
cube? What would you expect to happen to the ice cube if you mixed Liquid A and Liquid
B together? What would happen if you placed the ice cube in a tumbler of concentrated
salt water? What would happen if you place the ice cube in a tumbler of 90% IPA? (Note
that some drug stores sell both 70% and 90% IPA).
Golf Ball in a Graduated Cylinder

Get a large graduated cylinder about 500 to 1,000 mL and wide enough to fit a golf ball
inside it. Prepare a saturated salt solution using kosher salt flakes. Kosher salt flakes are
good to use since they dissolve easily in water. Fill the graduated cylinder about one-third
full with the salt solution. Now tilt the graduated cylinder on an angle and slide a golf
ball (preferably a yellow or pink one) down the side of the cylinder. When you place the
cylinder upright, the golf ball should float on top of the salt solution. If it doesn’t, increase
the concentration of salt in the solution and try again. With the ball floating on top of the
salt solution, again tilt the cylinder on a side and slowly and carefully pour water down
the side. Add enough water to equal the amount of salt solution. Place the cylinder
upright and the golf ball should appear to be floating in the middle of the graduated
cylinder. Because the solutions are immiscible, the students will not be able to see the
division between the salt solution and the water. Ask students to share their observations
and questions. Why is the golf ball floating in the middle of the graduated cylinder? What
do you know about the density of the golf ball compared to the density of clear solution?
Ask if any of the students play golf. What happens when they hit a golf ball in the water?
Where does the golf ball go? Students will ask if the golf ball is a fake. Tell them it’s a
regular golf ball and nothing is tricky about it. Urge students to make speculations and
assumptions about the phenomenon. Encourage them to provide supporting evidence for
their accusations.
Coke/Diet Coke and Smaller Sizes

Many teachers have done the classic Coca-Cola/Diet Coke demonstration in their
classes (Galus, 2003). Students always seem to engage with the discrepancy. To add a new
twist to the activity, consider adding another variable that can enhance students’ under-
standing of density. Begin the activity in the usual way. Fill a 10-gallon aquarium with
warm tap water and place it in full view of the class. Hold up a can of regular Coke and
ask students to predict what will happen when you place the can in the water. Before you
place the can in the water, have students provide reasons for their predictions. Are all the
predictions the same? How many students think it will float? How many think it will
sink? Place the can of Coke in the water and observe the results. Whose prediction was
correct? Now repeat the activity with a can of Diet Coke. Again have the students made
a prediction before you place it in the water. Allow time for students to provide an expla-
nation for the phenomenon. Many may know that the regular Coke is sweetened with
corn syrup, which is much denser than artificial sweeteners such as aspartame. Next,
repeat the activity using regular Coke with caffeine versus regular Coke without caffeine.
Then try Diet Coke with caffeine versus Diet Coke without caffeine. Does the presence of
caffeine alter the results? Why or why not? To challenge their understanding of density,
repeat the demonstration using a 12-ounce size regular Coke with a smaller 7.5-ounce
size. Are there some students that think the larger size will again sink but the smaller size
will float? If so, have both sides present their prediction with supportive evidence and
reasoning. Since most students have little experience with the smaller size cans, they will
probably make a prediction based on similar understandings or on faulty reasoning.
Think about how difficult it is for some students to undergo a conceptual change, even in
light of observational evidence. Teachers can take this activity further by comparing
similar cans of Coke and Pepsi. Or Diet Coke versus Coke Zero. Or Coke versus 7-Up,
root beer, or orange soda. And if your school would allow such a demonstration, you can
also test Bud versus Bud Lite! Just tell your principal it’s in the interest of science.
The traditional lab that was introduced a few pages back can serve as a basis for a
structured inquiry. With some simple modifications, the lab can encourage more owner-
ship on the part of the student and offer follow-up inquiries to investigate at its end.
Consider first introducing the lesson with a discrepant event from the previous section.
Then prompt students to design an investigation on how they might measure the densi-
ties of various rocks. The standard lab can also become more student centered by elimi-
nating the data table and having students design their own method of recording and
organizing the data collected. The lab can also have “going further” questions or guided
inquiries as a follow-up. One example may include having students sequence the densi-
ties of five unknown rocks (this time including igneous rocks) and minerals from least to
greatest density. Students can then use rock and mineral guides to identify the type and
name of each of the unknown samples.
Guided Inquiries
Guided inquires offer fewer directions for students. The example below shows one
way the traditional rock lab (from above) can be modified into a guided inquiry.
137
Purpose
Measuring density is a basic science skill that cuts across all science subject areas: biol-
ogy, earth science, chemistry, and physics. In this lab, you will calculate the densities of
several unknown rocks samples and then use their densities and physical characteristics
to determine each rock’s type and name.
Question
How does the density of sedimentary rocks compare to that of metamorphic rocks?
Investigation
Use the text resources in the room and the Internet to find out how density is mea-
sured. Obtain a means to measure the density of an irregular shaped object, such as a
rock. Decide what kinds of measurements you need to take to calculate the density of
each rock sample. Also decide the kinds of materials and equipment you will need to
make such measurements. Make a list of the supplies and equipment you will need. Then,
design a procedure to calculate the density. Include any safety rules you will need to fol-
low. Design a data table and make all notations and recordings in your science journal.
Show all work for the calculations in your journal. Have the teacher approve the proce-
dure before beginning.
Analysis
1. What is the density for each rock sample you measured?

2. From the density, color, and other observable characteristics, use a rock identifica-
tion guide to classify the type (sedimentary or metamorphic) and name of each rock
sample.
3. How did the densities of the sedimentary rock samples compare to the metamor-
phic rock samples?
4. Knowing that sedimentary rock can be transformed into metamorphic rock through
intense heat and pressure, how could this account for the difference in densities
between sedimentary and metamorphic rocks?
Now It’s Your Turn

Using the example above, choose one or more of the following science areas and write
a guided inquiry based on the application of density to that area of science. Include the
purpose of the inquiry, the question to be investigated, suggestions to help the student
design the investigation, and several follow-up questions to assist in the analysis of the
findings. After you write your inquiry, share it with a colleague.
General Science
1. Write a guided inquiry where a student calculates and compares the densities of
five different 1-inch balls (Styrofoam, rubber, wooden, glass [marble], and steel
balls).
2. Write a guided inquiry where the student discovers how the concentration of salt
in water affects its density. Use swimming in the Great Salt Lake as one example.
3. Write a guided inquiry where the student demonstrates how a life jacket saves
someone from drowning.
4. Write a guided inquiry where the student investigates the question: Does the peel
(or skin) of a fruit affect its density and ultimately whether it will sink or float? Use
a banana, orange, grape, apple, kiwi, and so forth as examples.
5. Write a guided inquiry where the student measures the density of a whole 3
Musketeers candy bar. Then have the student cut the bar in half and make a predic-
tion whether the density of the half pieces will increase, decrease, or remain the
same. The student should provide supporting evidence to determine whether the
prediction was correct or not.
Biology
1. Write a guided inquiry where the student determines the population density of an
ecosystem for a specific species (plant or animal).
2. Write a guided inquiry where the student describes the human population growth
rate and its impact on the population density of several highly populated countries
in the world.
Earth Science
1. Write a guided inquiry where the student is given 10 rocks and the task of sequenc-
ing the samples from the least to the most dense.
2. Write a guided inquiry where the student investigates the relationship between air
pressure and density. Include an explanation about what happens to the density of
air as the elevation or altitude increases.
Environmental Science
1. Write a guided inquiry where the student simulates an oil spill in water and com-
pares the densities of the two liquids. Relate the information to recent oil spills and
to cleanup and recovery efforts.
Chemistry
1. Write a guided inquiry where the student compares the densities of different gases
such as air, helium, carbon dioxide, and propane. Prompt the student to fill bal-
loons with an equal amount of each gas and compare differences.
Physics
1. Write a guided inquiry where the student calculates and compares the densities of
solids. Suggest that the student use different types of wood (balsa, cedar, pine,
maple, and walnut).
2. Write a guided inquiry where the student calculates and compares the densities of
liquids by pouring different liquids of different densities down a graduated cylin-
der. Liquid layers can be formed using corn oil, water, glycerin, and corn syrup.
139
Suggest that the student carefully drop several solid objects in the cylinder and see
at which level they rest. Solid objects can include a steel bolt, a rubber stopper, a
piece of plastic, and a small block of wood.
Self-Directed Inquiries
For self-directed or student-initiated inquiries, we now understand that the source of
the question comes from the student. This is considered the uppermost level of inquiry
since the ownership of the question is derived from and planned by the student.
According to Hermann and Miranda (2010), with the help of encouragement from teach-
ers, students can learn to formulate and carry out their own science investigations. By
using an Inquiry Question Template, students learn to independently construct a ques-
tion to investigate, design a procedure to test the question, and analyze the data collected
during the inquiry. Hermann and Miranda (2010) divide their 15-step template into three
parts: the prelab questions, the research question, and the experiment.
Step 1: During the prelab, the student observes a phenomenon and responds to the
following questions and tasks:
1. List several observations and inferences that can be made from the phenomenon
you observed.
2. From the observations and inferences you recorded, what variables can be identi-
fied and tested?
3. From the variables recorded from Step 2, choose one variable (the independent
variable) to test.
4. Decide how you would measure the independent variable you choose.
5. What factors (the dependent variables) could be affected by the independent vari-
able? Choose one dependent variable to include in your investigation.
6. Decide how you would measure the dependent variable.
7. What materials will you need to test the variables selected?
Step 2: During the formation of the researchable question, the student completes the
following task:
1. Based on the variables selected in the prelab, write a question you can test. Include
the independent and depend variables in your response.
Step 3: During the formation of the experiment, the student completes the following
questions and tasks:
1. Write the steps you will follow in conducting the experiment.

2. Gather the materials needed to complete the experiment.
3. Make a data table to record and organize the results of your experiment.
4. Plot a graph that shows the relationship between the independent and dependent
variables.
5. From the graph, describe the relationship between the variables tested.
6. What conclusions and claims can you draw from the data collected?
7. Scrutinize your results and decide if any sources of error influenced the data. If it
was, how could they be minimized?
Hermann and Miranda (2010) believe that using the suggested template eliminates
unnecessary disappointments and results in a rewarding experience for both the student
and the teacher.
Writing an Inquiry/Argument-Based
Lab Report
Most high school science teachers require a written lab based on a standard format to be
handed in at the conclusion of the lab. A standard format usually found in science text-
books includes many or all of the following sections:
1. The Title of the Lab 5 Safety Measures

2. The Question 6. The Procedure
3. The Hypothesis to be Tested 7. The Data Table and/or Graph
4. The Materials Needed 8. The Conclusion
This style of lab report is pretty straightforward and focuses on restating the process
and procedure that was followed. In most cases the textbook lab write-up ends with
questions for the student that help summarize the data and draw conclusions from the
findings. This type of lab report serves a legitimate function—to reiterate the scientific
process taken by the investigator and to confirm the accuracy of the hypothesis stated
beforehand. There is nothing wrong with this type of lab report. It serves to help stu-
dents organize and capture their ideas in a logical, written arrangement. However, if
you are interested in having students write an inquiry/argument-based report, the
standard format is no longer appropriate. The format below identifies the sections for
an inquiry/argument-based report. You can see that more weight is placed on the
analysis and discussion sections. As in a research article published in a scientific or
medical journal, the author focuses more attention on the meaning of the inquiry rather
than the mechanics. A suggested point value has been placed on each of the sections to
highlight its importance in the report:
•• Introduction and background (10 pts.)

•• Question (5 pt.)
•• Prior assumptions and/or hypothesis (or hypotheses)—if appropriate (5 pts.)
•• Variables (5 pts.)
•• Method (10 pts.)
•• Data (15 pts.)
•• Analysis (25 pts.)
{{ Describe the relationship among variables (10 pts.)
{{ State a claim backed with supporting evidence (15 pts.)
•• Explanation and discussion (25 pts.)

141
The Current Debate About

High School Science Labs
Unquestionably, the United States requires high school and college graduates with a foun-
dation of scientific literacy to meet today’s demand for highly skilled technical workers
and to fulfill tomorrow’s need for scientists and engineers. High school laboratory experi-
ences have in the past and will continue in the future to play a vital role in achieving that
goal. However, there still seems to be a disparity in how high school teachers view the role
of science labs in their courses. Some teachers think that the major contribution of labora-
tories lies in two areas: (a) helping students develop lab skills by following prescribed
procedures and manipulating scientific equipment and (b) verifying the acceptability of
content presented in earlier lectures and readings. In this case, the lab becomes an “add-
on” to the topic being presented and is usually completed toward the end of the unit after
the introduction of content terms and vocabulary. According to America’s Lab Report (NRC,
2006), “Rapid developments in science, technology, and cognitive research have made the
traditional definition of science laboratories—as rooms in which students use special
equipment to carry out well-defined procedures obsolete” (p. 31).
Others see the lab as an integral part of the lesson where students explore their ideas
and test their assumptions through inquiry and argumentation. This notion closely paral-
lels the National Research Council’s suggestions for laboratory experiences as outlined in
America’s Lab Report (NRC, 2006). In that document, the NRC makes the following state-
ments about the role of inquiry and argumentation in the high school science lab:
•• According to the standards, regardless of the scientific investigation performed,

students must use evidence, apply logic, and construct an argument for their pro-
posed explanations. These standards emphasize the importance of creating scien-
tific arguments and explanations for observations made in the laboratory. (p. 28)
•• Student laboratory experiences that reflect these aspects of the work of scientists
would include learning about the most current concepts and theories through
reading, lectures, or discussions; formulating questions; designing and carrying
out investigations; creating and revising explanatory models; and presenting
their evolving ideas and scientific arguments to others for discussion and evalu-
ation. (p. 34)
•• Laboratory experiences may promote a student’s ability to identify questions and
concepts that guide scientific investigations; to design and conduct scientific inves-
tigations; to develop and revise scientific explanations and models; to recognize
and analyze alternative explanations and models; and to make and defend a scien-
tific argument. Making a scientific argument includes such abilities as writing,
reviewing information, using scientific language appropriately, constructing a rea-
soned argument, and responding to critical comments. (pp. 76–77)
•• Recently, research has focused on an important element of scientific reasoning—the
ability to construct scientific arguments. Developing, revising, and communicating
scientific arguments is now recognized as a core scientific practice. (p. 92)
•• Laboratory experiences play a key role in instructional units designed to enhance
students’ argumentation abilities, because they provide both the impetus and the
data for constructing scientific arguments. (p. 92)
•• Over the past 10 years, researchers studying laboratory education have shifted
their focus. Drawing on principles of learning derived from the cognitive sciences,
they have asked how to sequence science instruction, including laboratory experi-
ences, in order to support students’ science learning. We refer to these instructional
sequences as “integrated instructional units.” Integrated instructional units connect
laboratory experiences with other types of science learning activities, including
lectures, reading, and discussion. Students are engaged in framing research ques-
tions, making observations, designing and executing experiments, gathering and
analyzing data, and constructing scientific arguments and explanations. (p. 107)
It is now crystal clear that science instruction and the laboratory experience will take
a sweeping turn with the inception of A Framework for K−12 Science Education (NRC, 2012)
and the Next Generation Science Standards (NRC, 2013). High school science teachers will
soon face the challenge of implementing these new standards in their classrooms. This
will require thoughtful reflection regarding one’s current practices and methodology
and comparing them to the new reform strategies fostering scientific inquiry and
argumentation.
Case Study: The Hydrate Lab

The following case study is an example of how one high school chemistry teacher, Tom
Mueller, took a traditional copper sulfate hydrate lab and revised it using the 5E Learning
Cycle, making it more inquiry based. The original lab provided the question to be stud-
ied, the materials to be used, the steps in the procedure, and a predetermined table for
organizing the data.
The activities in the Hydrate Lab align with A Framework for K−12 Science Education
(NRC, 2012) for the following standards:
Practices
•• Developing and using models

•• Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information
•• Structure and function
Core Ideas
•• PS2.A Structure and properties of matter
For the hydrate lab during the previous year, Tom’s students completed a prelab
assessment. As part of the assessment, students observed crystals of copper (II) sulfate
pentahydrate and recorded their observations. After giving the class the prelab assess-
ment, Tom determined that many of the students had difficulty believing that small blue
crystals of copper sulfate could have any water content. Because he knew the phenome-
non of hydration was an essential concept of the school’s chemistry curriculum, he
143
decided this year to revise his approach to the lab based on the students’ prior concep-
tions. He modified the lab through an extended 5E Learning Cycle. The following is a
synopsis of Tom’s revision.
Engagement
Anticipating that students would have difficulty understanding the notion that the
blue crystals contained water, Tom showed the class an apple and posed the question,
“Does this apple contain any water?” Taking a big bite out of the apple and squirting juice
in all directions, he continued, “How do you know?”
Tracy answered by saying, “Sure, the apple is juicy, and some of that juice is made up
of water.”
“That’s a great start,” Tom suggested. “Now, how could you determine the percent-
age of water in the apple?”
Jason responded by saying, “You would have to weigh the apple to determine its
mass. Then heat it to drive off all the water inside the apple and reweigh the apple to
calculate the percentage of water.”
After a bit more discussion, Tom pulled a dehydrated apple from his desk, held it up
for the class to see, and gave the students its mass in grams before and after heating. Two
minutes later, the students had calculated the percentage of water in the apple to be 65%.
Exploration
Now that the students had a concrete understanding of the percentage of water in an
apple, it was time to move on to various other fruits. On his desk, Tom then placed a bowl
containing oranges, grapes, plums, bananas, cherries, and a few exotic-looking fruits.
“For homework tonight,” Tom explained, “your assignment is to take one of these fruits
and heat it gently in the oven at home to drive off all the water. Tomorrow in class, you
will mass the fruit and determine the percentage of water in it.” He had each student
come up and choose a fruit. The students were instructed to mass their sample and place
it in a clear plastic zip-top bag before the end of the class. The next day, they would re-
mass their shriveled sample and determine the percentage of water.
Explanation
The following day, Tom presented a short lecture on the concept of hydration while
students took notes. Later, he had the students re-mass their samples and share their cal-
culations on the percentage of water found in the fruits. Jessica offered to share her calcu-
lations for the banana with the class:
Mass of the banana before heating = 110 grams

Mass of the banana after heating = 52 grams
Mass of water driven off = 58 grams
Percentage of water = 53%
Other students posted their fruits and percentages. The samples were then placed in
sequential order from the greatest to the least amount of water. Some students then
shared comments about using fruit hydrators and the benefits of freeze-dried fruits when
hiking and camping.
Extension and Elaboration

With the fruit hydration example in mind, students now were given the task of
designing a lab to determine the percentage of water in copper (II) sulfate pentahydrate
crystals. By applying the formula from the previous activity, students worked in groups
to develop a procedure and experiment for determining the percentage of water in copper
(II) sulfate pentahydrate. They also used the example from the fruit investigation to
design their own charts and tables to organize the data.
Many students decided to use the following materials:
•• A sample of copper (II) sulfate pentahydrate crystals

•• A heat source
•• A test tube
•• A test-tube holder
•• A ring stand
•• An electronic balance
The groups also had to record their own safety rules for the lab. With lots of ideas fly-
ing about, one group brainstormed the idea of using an evaporating dish versus heating
the sample in a test tube. In the end, all the groups were able to design and carry out the
experiment. At the conclusion of the data analysis, the percentage of error among the
student groups was discussed.
Evaluation
As an evaluation of the hydrate concept, some students were given samples of other
hydrates to calculate the percentage of water. Other students were given two samples and
had to determine which sample was the hydrate and which was the nonhydrate. In either
case, students had to use the knowledge and skills from the original investigation and
apply it to a new performance task.
This is just one example of how teachers can revise a traditional lab and make it more
inquiry oriented and student centered. As science teachers decide to use more inquiry-
based investigations, there is no reason to discard the time-honored labs they have done
over the years. Consider modifying aspects of the lab and turn over more decision mak-
ing and responsibility to the students. By following the suggestion made earlier in the
chapter, you will find the transition into inquiry to be a smooth and evolving process.
1. In the Hydrate Lab, how does the teacher use the engagement stage as a “cognitive
hook” to get students started in the investigation? How does this illustration make
the lab seem more relevant?
2. Think of several labs you presently give to students that can be modified into an
inquiry-based lab. Which of your labs are not appropriate for inquiry?
145
3. Read the following activities and decide which are inquiry based and which are
not. Determine whether the activity is hands-on, minds-on, project based, or
inquiry based. Share your assessments with a partner and discuss the similarities
and differences in your responses. To frame your argument, use the templates and
starter sentences provided in the Preface and Chapter 2.
Activity 1: Ninth-grade earth science students complete a cloud formation calendar
by cutting out pictures or taking digital photographs of daily cloud types and
mounting the pictures or photographs on the day of the calendar. At the end of the
month, students calculate the percentage of cloudy days for that month, classify the
occurrence of various cloud formations for that month, and prepare a written
report of their results.
Activity 2: Tenth-grade biology students are studying adaptation and have been
given the task of constructing a poster exhibit showing ways both plants and
animals have adaptations to survive. Students use online resources to research
topics such as seed dispersal, protective coloration, hibernation/migration
behaviors, opposable thumbs, adjusting metabolic rates, and being able to survive
extreme hot or cold temperatures. Each group is responsible for presenting a
5-minute oral presentation to the class. Some groups use PowerPoint to present
their exhibit. Others visit the local zoo to take pictures of animals to comment on
their adaptations to survive in the wild.
Activity 3: Eleventh-grade chemistry students are studying neutralization reactions.
They are given the task of determining which over-the-counter antacid is most
effective. One student proposes that they have to decide what “effective” means
and how can it be quantified. Another student suggests that the group measures
how many tablets are needed to change the pH of 100 mL of acid from 5 to 7.
Activity 4: Twelfth-grade environmental science students monitor the concentration
of insoluble particles in water samples taken from a nearby stream. Their teacher
suggests filtration as a method to determine the level of particles in the water.
Students take samples from the same location over a period of 1 month and analyze
the results. The students are required to submit a written report to the teacher
describing their findings and recommendations.
Activity 5: Twelfth-grade physics students are studying electrical circuits. Students
are given the task of wiring a doll house with electricity so that each room has a
separate light and switch. Students are provided with directions on how to make a
parallel circuit, insulated copper wire, wire cutters, bulb holders, micro bulbs,
screwdrivers, knife switches, and a 9-volt battery as a source of electricity.
8
Managing the
Inquiry-Based
Classroom
The Implementation Curve

Whether teachers well versed in the use of inquiry or educators new to its practice, their
observations regarding student interest and behavior in their inquiry-based classrooms
are the same. There is an implementation curve based on the performance of students as
they move from being introduced to inquiry to becoming comfortable with the inquiry
style of learning. The curve’s typical phrases, as illustrated below, are Anticipation,
Tolerance, Disillusionment, Rejuvenation, and finally, Realization.
At the beginning of the school year, as the teacher’s enthusiasm is communicated to
the students, the level of student interest rises. During this initial phase, inquiry is a novel
learning strategy, and students seem to thrive on this method of studying new concepts.
But by November or December, some teachers say, the “honeymoon” is over as they begin
to experience occasional resistance from students who all of a sudden discover that the
focus and responsibility of learning is on them, not on the teacher. During this phase, stu-
dents often ask, “Why don’t you just tell us the answer? You’re the teacher. You’re sup-
posed to give us the answer.” This is a critical time for teachers new to inquiry because
students may challenge their beliefs about effective teaching and learning. After hearing
student discontent day after day, the natural temptation may be to give in and return to
the customary way of teaching. But the best advice is to stick with it and tell students that
the one way a teacher can be truly effective is by placing the onus of learning on the stu-
dents. As one teacher tells her students, “If I keep giving you the answer, I won’t be doing
my job as a teacher. You have to learn to think for yourself.” Soon, the proprietorship of
inquiry re-escalates as students come to realize what real learning entails—ownership
and self-determination. As teachers progress through the learning curve, they understand
the challenges they will face, as well as their students, and plan instruction accordingly.
146
MANAGING THE INQUIRY-BASED CLASSROOM
147
Figure 8.1 Five Developmental Phases in Implementing Inquiry-Based Science Instruction
Level of Student Acceptance

Realization
of Inquiry
Tolerance
Rejuvenation
Anticipation
Disillusionment
Time
Source: Adapted from Tuckman, 1965.
One high school teacher, who’s also a mother of two teenage girls, sees an analogy
between getting her biology students accustomed to inquiry and raising teens. Linda
explains, “Good parents don’t give in to the teenage tantrums despite the pressure or
because it might be easier to do so. Similarly, being a good teacher means having to set
high expectations and helping students reach them.”
Challenges to Inquiry-Based Teaching

Aside from the research and teachers’ commentaries that confirm that inquiry-based
teaching can be an effective means to engage students and increase academic achieve-
ment in science, the question still lingers: after nearly three decades of recommenda-
tions from the Benchmarks for Science Literacy (American Association for the Advancement
of Science [AAAS], 1993), the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996), A
Framework for K−12 Science Education (NRC, 2012), and the Next Generation Science
Standards (NRC, 2013), why don’t we see inquiry- and argument-based instruction in
more high school science classrooms? This, of course, is not a new question for science
educators. Back in the mid-1980s, Costenson and Lawson (1986), in an article for The
American Biology Teacher titled “Why Isn’t Inquiry Used in More Classrooms?” con-
cluded that
to implement inquiry in the classroom we see three critical ingredients: (1) teach-
ers must understand precisely what scientific inquiry is, (2) they must have suf-
ficient understanding of the structure of the (content) itself, and (3) they must
become skilled in inquiry teaching techniques. Lacking this knowledge and skills,
teachers are left with little choice but to teach facts in the less effective expository
way. (p. 158)
There are many reasons why high school science teachers say they can’t teach through
inquiry. Some of those reasons may be because of what are believed to be externally
conceived factors. Others may be more internally imposed. In Chapter 4, you read a list
of reasons. Look back to that page and reread the list. Identify the reasons as either
externally or internally imposed.
High school science teachers say the number one reason preventing them from doing
full inquiry-based labs is lack of time. Coupled with the number of content standards to
be taught and the high-stakes assessment that frequently is associated with high school
science curricula, finding classroom time to do scientific inquiry is a challenge to teachers.
The question that faces us now becomes this—knowing full well that open-ended inves-
tigations and unraveling students’ misconceptions take more time than customary learn-
ing methods, how can science teachers make time in the day to do more inquiry-based
instruction? This chapter will answer that question. But before going on, look back to the
question. Notice the phrase “make time.” It doesn’t say “find time.” In The Tao of Teaching,
Greta Nagel (1994) suggests that it’s not about finding time, it’s about making time.
Whereas finding time implies a passive search, possibly in a nonlinear, nonsystemic, ran-
dom process, making time involves the teacher in an active process of planning, and thus
becoming more effective and efficient with the limited amount of classroom time avail-
able. Making time is an active process. It implies ownership and empowerment. So as you
continue on your journey to become an inquiry science teacher, think positive and learn
ways to be more effective and efficient with your precious instructional time—thus
making more opportunities for inquiry learning. Expect to face many challenges, but be
mindful that they are challenges, not barriers. On your journey expect to be constantly
calibrating your comfort zone—finding the strategies and methodologies that work best
for you. Be mindful that not everything you read about will be perfectly situated to your
classroom. Be faithful to your journey. When the task seems daunting, don’t give in to the
loyalists of the status quo. Find a supportive ally to share your challenges and solutions
with, and, above all, persevere.
Making Time for Inquiry

and Argumentation
Effective time management is the key to an inquiry and argument-based classroom. It’s
obvious you can’t teach when the room is in chaos. For that reason, I always suggest that
teachers first get their “classroom management house” in order before attempting to
implement inquiry and argument-based strategies. Most teachers should use their first
year of teaching to get familiar and comfortable with the course content and expectations.
Year two is a better time to progress to inquiry teaching. Year two is also a better time to
differentiate between intervention classroom management practices (dealing with stu-
dent misbehavior as it occurs) versus prevention practices (averting student misbehavior
before it occurs).
Benjamin Franklin is credited with saying, “Lost time is never found again.” Consider
the teacher who loses the first 2 minutes at the beginning of class in getting students
settled down and another minute in taking attendance, and who also gives students the
last 2 or 3 minutes at the end of the period to do homework or get ready to pass to the
next class. Not including additional lost time for other outside disturbances such as
phone calls, announcements, and late students with or without passes, it is not uncom-
mon for teachers to lose 6 minutes of instructional time per period! It may not seem like
149
much, but when we multiply 6 minutes over 180 school days, it calculates to 1,080 min-
utes, or 18 hours, a school year. Put another way, it becomes twenty-four 45-minute peri-
ods. That’s an entire month lost to noninstructional time—time that could be used to
engage students with inquiry.
Although typical approaches to time include lengthening the school year, reducing
class size, or narrowing the curriculum (i.e., less is more), the purpose of this chapter is
to provide science teachers with simple, practical suggestions for making time for inquiry.
You are likely to discover that many of the suggestions are not new. However, we can be
remiss in implementing even the fundamental strategies for time management.
Time is the only phenomenon that is both a constant and a variable. Using the clock
wisely means more instructional time for student-centered instruction. If you don’t con-
trol the clock, the clock will control you! Teachers can implement several strategies to
make time for inquiry, as outlined below.
Use Essential Questions

Write and post an essential (or starter) question on a separate strip of poster paper
before the students enter the room. Posting the essential question avoids students asking,
“What are we going to do today?” Students will become accustomed to the routine of
reading the question that identifies the objective of the lesson. Avoid writing the essential
question on the blackboard or SMART board. When teachers write the essential question
on the blackboard or SMART board, it is usually visible only for a minute. Keep the essen-
tial question visible throughout the lesson. Posting the essential question focuses the
students at the beginning of the lesson. Plus, it serves as a reminder to review and bring
closure to the lesson. Along with the essential question, the teacher can also post the
agenda for the lesson, showing the sequence and the estimated time limit for each section
of the lesson. The posting can identify what materials students need to complete the
assignment and the expected outcome.
The First Second

At the start of the school year, begin instruction on the first second of the first minute
of the first day. Don’t use the first day for filling out attendance cards, distributing text-
books, or other trivial administrative matters. Those tasks can be done later. Start the class
by developing a sense of urgency and communicating the importance of learning. Make
a statement by starting the course with a highly engaging and action-oriented activity.
This way, students leave with a “wow” impression of your course and want to come back
tomorrow for more!
Throughout the school year, use the entire instructional period by working bell to bell.
In other classes, students may expect to have a few minutes at the beginning and the end
of the period to socialize or start homework, but not in yours. Begin your classes as soon
as the bell rings even though all the students may not be in the room. Communicate to
students that you begin on time and that they are also expected to be in the room on time.
You will soon find that the first 2 minutes of class sets the tone for the remainder of the
period. Do not allow students to pack up until the bell rings. Soon, the class will come to
understand that working the entire period is part of the classroom culture and your effec-
tive use of valuable instructional time. Use the final 2 or 3 minutes of class to review the
essential question or give an oral or written quiz to assess their learning, as well as
the success of your teaching. That will provide suggestions for revisions. If you make
concluding comments too soon, that becomes a signal for students that the lesson is over
and it’s time to pack up and get ready to move on to the next class.
Develop Daily Rules and Routines

Despite what students say, most want to know that there are classroom rules and
routines to maintain order. Examples include passing back assignments as students come
in the door or introducing the lesson by using an essential question. Avoid using prime
instructional time for taking attendance. Instead, have a student take attendance and spot
check regularly. You can also take attendance while students are working on an assigned
task.
The effective use of instructional time starts with sound classroom management strat-
egies. Out-of-control student behaviors cause the loss of instructional time. When calling
on students, tell them to “raise your hand if you know the answer to this question.” Insist
on nonverbal behaviors for recognition. Avoid calling on students who shout out answers.
Design Your Lesson Plans Based

on Time Allotments
Use your planning time to design lessons based on 10- or 15-minute intervals. Balance
your lesson plan with individual work, small-group work, and whole-class instruction.
Keep to the time allotted for each segment. With 3 to 4 minutes remaining until the end
of the class, provide a brief summary, reflection, review, and closure to the lesson.
Teach to the Essential Core Concepts

Curriculum developers always seem good at adding to the curriculum, but they sel-
dom subtract from it. To make time for inquiry, cut the fat out of the curriculum and teach
to the essential core. Avoid adding extended topics that eat up prime instructional time
and are not part of the curriculum. To maximize classroom time, consider selecting one
or two topics that can be learned through independent study, by outside readings or
homework, or by using the Internet. Additionally, many basic concepts in the curriculum
can be learned through self-study or assigned study groups.
Pick Up the Pace

Confine lectures to shorter periods of time, usually 15 to 20 minutes, and limit off-task
discussions during a teacher-led presentation. When a student raises a question, deter-
mine if the question stems from that one student, several students, or the entire class. If
the question applies specifically to only one student’s concern, it may be more appropri-
ate to address that question individually with the student at the end of class.
Before beginning an activity or assignment, be sure the students understand its objec-
tives and purpose. Limit the time used to read the directions aloud to the class. Have
students read the directions silently to themselves and then ask several students to repeat
the expectations of the activity. Having students correctly repeat the objectives, proce-
dures, or expectations provides evidence that the directions are clear and the students
know what to do during the investigation.
To close the lesson, pose the question, “What are the two most significant points of
today’s lesson?” or “What do you know now that you didn’t know 45 minutes ago?” Ask
151
a student to summarize the main points of the lesson and set the transition for the next
day by saying, “Tomorrow we will be studying . . .”
Use Organized Workstations

As an alternative to typical labs, whenever possible consider redesigning the lab so
that students rotate to six or seven stations to complete a task. In biology, stations may be
appropriate when viewing various specimens under the microscope. In earth science, sta-
tions are an alternative when testing various samples of rocks or minerals or conducting
simple chemical tests. Since each station offers a new and different task, rotating from
station to station keeps the class engaged and motivated.
Use Concept Maps

Concept maps are schematic diagrams that identify the relationships and interconnec-
tions among concepts for a particular topic. Concept maps usually have either a radial (or
weblike) orientation, with the main idea in the center of the map, or a hierarchical orienta-
tion, with the main idea at the top of the map. Concept maps are, in a way, mental maps that
guide our thinking. Novak (1998) reports that when students frequently use concept maps,
they learn how to negotiate meaning, organize ideas, and become more effective learners.
When constructing a concept map, it is important to do the following:
1. Place the main idea at the center or top of the map.

2. Organize the words or concepts from most general to most specific.
3. Use a linking word (verb, preposition, or short phrase) to connect and illustrate the
relationships and linkages from one idea to another. Software programs such as
Inspiration provide a step-by-step guide to show how to create concept maps and
graphic organizers. For more information and a trial sample, see www.inspiration
.com.
4. Use crossing links to make connections between words in different areas of the
map.
5. Add to the map as new knowledge is constructed.
Figure 8.2 is an example of a concept map with radial orientation.

Teachers can make the students’ class time more efficient by using concept maps or
graphic organizers for note-taking. As students gain mastery in using concept maps, they
develop an understanding of the relationships among elements of a concept, ultimately
making incremental gains in moving from novices to expert learners. According to
Bransford, Brown, and Cocking, experts differ from novices in that
experts notice features and patterns of information . . . have acquired a great deal of

content knowledge that is organized in ways that reflect deep understanding . . .
and their knowledge cannot be reduced to a set of isolated facts or propositions
but, instead, reflects contexts of applicability. (NRC, 2000b, p. 31)
In endorsing that belief, Pellegrino, Chudowsky, and Glaser argue, “Most important, they
have efficiently coded and organized this information into well-connected schemas . . .
152
Figure 8.2 Concept Map
nonlinear review or evolution of

preconceptions
organization summary child’s thought
and shows
linking words
(verbs or assess prior
expressed as as post-assessment
prepositions) knowledge
connected by as as
hierarchy from graphic

general to relationships new knowledge
by assessment
specific among concepts is assimilated
as
modified
multidimensional that show used for throughout
lesson
can be
and
note-taking instructional Concept

used for are are constructed
techniques tools Maps
used to to
advanced represent
as introduce a
organizer information and
chapter make knowledge
illustrated by
better leads to construction of show connections webs

understanding knowledge visible or diagrams
153
[which] help experts interpret new information and notice features and meaningful pat-
terns of information that might be overlooked by less competent learners” (NRC, 2001b,
p. 73). Furthermore, by constructing concept maps, students enhance a metacognitive
approach to learning by negotiating one’s ideas, taking control of one’s own learning, and
monitoring one’s progress. Finally, when using concept maps in class, at the end of class,
the teacher should post his or her master copy, allowing students to compare their notes
to it.
Concept maps have also been widely used in assessing presently held knowledge and
documenting the acquisition and progression of new knowledge (Edmondson, 2000).
This is accomplished by simply having the student create a concept map citing his or her
pre-understandings about a particular topic prior to the start of a unit of study. As the
student completes the concept map, the teacher can determine what the student knows
about the topic. As the unit progresses, the student can return to the map and make cor-
rections (from prior misconceptions) and additions, citing newly acquired information.
Using a different colored pencil or pen for each revision makes it easy to visualize how
knowledge is constructed and modified. The concept map then acts as a vehicle for initi-
ating a discussion on the student’s pre- and post-knowledge.
Assign Students to Work in Pairs

When students work in pairs, they are more likely to stay on-task and use class time
effectively. Usually when students work in pairs, the teacher spends less time dealing
with distractions and off-task behaviors. Larger groups tend to produce added socializing
and off-task behavior during the lab. Additionally, larger groups make it easier for one or
two students in the group to become inattentive and non-participatory members. When
lab groups consist of three or four students, the responsibility often lies with one or
two of the students in the group to carry out the lab. Group size will, of course, be predi-
cated on the nature of the assignment as well as the quantity of supplies and equipment
available.
Provide Time Limits

State the amount of time students have to complete a task, a lab, or an assignment.
Stick to the time limit. Avoid allowing a 5-minute activity to take 10 minutes. Asking
“Who needs more time?” will only communicate to students that it’s okay to waste time
during the assignment. Consider using a stopwatch to announce the remaining time stu-
dents have to complete an assignment. Several e-stopwatches are available online. Help
keep students stay on-task by offering several time prompts, such as, “You have 2 min-
utes remaining” and “You have 30 seconds remaining.”
Limit Class Time for Test Review

Limit the use of instructional time for review in preparation for a unit test or final
examinations. Instead set aside after-school sessions for test review and make it worth-
while for students to attend by providing additional credit or giving questions during the
review session that are similar to those on the test. In some cases, teachers use 1 or 2
weeks at the end of the school year for the final exam review. This can consume a tremen-
dous amount of classroom time. Use prior unit tests as the basis for the final and have
students review unit tests for the final exam.
Consider Take-Home Tests and Quizzes

Over the school year, unit tests and quizzes can consume up to 2 or 3 weeks of instruc-
tional time. Consider, where appropriate, occasionally using open-book tests and/or
take-home extended response questions to be completed at home rather than during class
time.
Limit Classroom Interruptions

Classroom interruptions are often a prime cause of lost instructional time. Classroom
interruptions usually take the form of the school’s public address system, phone calls
during class, or students entering or being called out of the classroom once the lesson
begins. How often have we heard, “Please pardon the interruption, but would Jackie
Smith report to the office immediately?”
Every classroom interruption subtracts instructional time multiplicatively. After a
30-second interruption, it may take double the time to get students’ attention back on track
to the topic being studied. Teachers who experience constant interruptions should monitor
daily occurrences and report the frequency to the appropriate school administrator.
Unfortunately, time is a limited, nonrenewable resource; there is only so much time
available in the school day. Managing time is like managing money—you need to account
for it. By developing a time management plan and spending your time wisely, you can
generate 3 to 4 weeks of additional instructional time—time that can be used to engage
your students in inquiry-based learning.
Up until now, the suggestions have been mostly centered on time. We’ll now shift our
focus to how the lesson format can influence classroom management.
Avoiding a Lockstep Approach

As novice teachers try to establish a manageable classroom environment, they often
implement a lockstep approach to teaching. This means the lesson is presented in a way
where all the students are expected to progress together as one. With a lockstep approach,
the teacher usually provides the step-by-step procedures orally as the students read them
from a handout. To the teacher’s way of thinking, this approach communicates a sense of
control and sequential orderliness. However, keeping the students on a regimented
instruction can lead to unwanted consequences. Consider the teacher who uses a lockstep
approach during a whole-class, hands-on activity. Picture, if you can, one student in the
class not understanding what’s going on or a second student who is off-task and not pay-
ing attention. At this point, the teacher usually stops the lesson to re-explain the proce-
dure to the confused student or reprimand the misbehaving student while the rest of the
class sits and bides their time. Amid a class of 25, one student receives the teacher’s atten-
tion while the 24 other students wait for the lesson to resume.
Consider a lab where Mrs. Hagen’s 9th-grade general chemistry students are investi-
gating the dissolving rate of sugar. For this lab, she informs her students that they will
follow a step-by-step procedure in testing how three variables—surface area, water tem-
perature, and stirring—affect the dissolving rate of sugar. Although she is convinced that
the lab will provide practice in learning important science process skills, she is unaware
of the problems that will surface while trying to keep all the students together on the
same pace at the same time.
155
To begin the activity, Mrs. Hagen hands out a worksheet for the sugar lab. The sheet
lists the question to be investigated, the materials to be used, the procedure to be fol-
lowed, and includes a blank chart to organize the data. To start the lab, she reads the
question to the students: “What factors affect the dissolving rate of sugar? In this lab, we
will see how the temperature of the water, whether sugar is a cube or a granular, or
whether we stir or don’t stir the solution makes the sugar dissolve faster in water.”
Although she doesn’t realize it, she has practically told the students what results to expect
from the lab.
Mrs. Hagen proceeds to read the procedure, one step at a time, so students can follow
along and complete the steps together. Although the process is well-intended, it often
results in students becoming bored with the regimented, slow-paced instruction. As a
result, many students are ready to move ahead, but forced to wait, they begin to act out.
Mrs. Hagen finds herself in a situation where she now has to discipline disruptive stu-
dents and lose precious instructional time. She ends up telling the class, “We’re not going
to move on until everybody is settled down and ready to get back to work.” She has yet
to learn that spoon-feeding and coaxing students into compliance has never been an effec-
tive management tool.
Across the hall, Mr. Bortal is having his chemistry students do the same lab—although
his approach is quite different from Mrs. Hagen’s. Mr. Bortal begins the lab by dropping
a sugar cube into a beaker of room temperature water and posing the question, “What
factors affect the dissolving rate of sugar? In this lab you will choose a variable—the tem-
perature of water, the surface area, or agitation (whether you stir or don’t stir the solution)
to test the dissolving rate of sugar. Or you may choose another variable to test besides the
ones I suggested. You will design your own investigation and decide what supplies and
equipment you will need to carry out your plan. At the end of the investigation, you
should be able to report your findings to the class and make a claim based on supportive
evidence collected as to the results of your inquiry. Be ready to justify and defend your
findings and to offer an explanation as to what’s happening, molecularly, in the
situation.”
These two approaches are obviously very different. They do point out the extreme
disparities you may see in a high school science class—one class very controlling, the
other more individualized. Research on the pedagogical practices within urban class-
rooms suggest that as a result of many curricula-imposed and self-imposed constraints,
many urban teachers’ practices emphasize directive, controlling teaching, which Martin
Haberman (1991) calls the “pedagogy of poverty.” However, teachers do have a choice.
They can either espouse a lockstep approach justified for the management of classroom
behavior or facilitate ownership where students have control over their learning through
self-paced instruction, which is characteristic of inquiry-based science. Throughout this
book, many of the examples provide alternatives for instructional practice. In the end,
based on one’s values and beliefs about what constitutes quality teaching and learning, it
will always be the individual teacher who decides the direction to take.
Establishing the Right Atmosphere

Any successful farmer knows that a healthy crop does not sprout by chance. Before the
farmer sows his annual seeds, he or she takes great effort to till and prepare the soil. Then,
after the seeds are planted, he applies the right application of fertilizer and, in times of
drought, provides irrigation as needed. The process is repeated year after year to ensure the
greatest possible yield. In the end, without any unforeseeable weather or pest problems, a
bountiful crop emerges. There is much similarity between a farmer’s field and a teacher’s
classroom: both places need proper cultivating and nurturing to be productive environments.
These days, academic pressure and stress are often the top predators of student pro-
ductivity. Anxiety and pressure from classwork consumes many high school adolescents.
However, a classroom atmosphere that is emotionally comfortable can contribute to less
anxiety and more effective learning. Making classrooms places where students can learn
with feelings of composure and confidence is a principal goal. In looking to ease the
atmosphere of the physical environment, a small percentage of teachers are turning to
ways to improve classroom conditions. Let’s investigate several ways in which teachers
can implement ideas to turn a stale classroom into a creative center for learning.
1. Clear the clutter. Clutter is perhaps the most damaging aspect of a classroom.
It conveys a sense of disorder and confusion. Make your classroom as clutter
free as possible. Do not keep books and papers lying around the room. Keep the
shelves and storage cabinets as uncluttered as possible. Use plastic bins to store
supplies. The bins can be easily taken out from a storage cabinet and returned
at the end of an activity. Orderliness is always a chancy suggestion since there
are many excellent high school science teachers who say, “I know my room is a
mess, but that’s the way I like it. It’s organized chaos. Besides, I can find any-
thing I need in what looks like disorder. I like my room just the way it is.”
Nevertheless, for first-year teachers especially, a clutter-free, well-organized
looking classroom is a good place to begin when establishing a classroom man-
agement system.
2. Natural light is best. The use of natural light can invigorate a classroom by inspir-
ing the development of emotions and thoughts. Natural sunlight is a source of
energy. Whenever possible, raise the window shades and let natural light shine in.
You may want to supplement natural light with a desktop lamp with a full-spec-
trum light bulb. They are cost-efficient and eco-friendly.
3. Placement is paramount. The typical science classroom is set up in a lecture-style
arrangement consisting of straight rows and columns. Arrange the teacher’s desk
so it’s facing the entrance door and has an unobstructed view of the entire class-
room. Consider arranging the student desks in groups of threes or fours or in a
semicircle of two rows: one inner row and one outer row. Change the seating
arrangement periodically to show flexibility, and experiment with different pat-
terns to discover what works best for your classes. Be sure that the desk arrange-
ment does not cause a traffic jam. Open the arrangement as much as possible.
Openness promotes clarity and reduces ambiguity.
4. Display nature. Classrooms, especially science classrooms, should be nature-
friendly settings. Consider incorporating the natural beauty and tranquility of
flowing water in your classroom. Add an aquarium with a filter system that pours
into the tank like a waterfall. Flowing water symbolizes peacefulness and serenity.
The sound of the water flowing can add a soothing, peaceful background. A table-
top mini-waterfall or fountain can be an excellent alternative to an aquarium. In
addition, plants give your classroom a natural, environmental look. Add several
plants to beautify the room. In the Chinese culture, the bamboo plant symbolizes
longevity as well as good luck. Terraria are another excellent possibility.
157
5. Color matters. The color of a room can encourage or discourage certain behaviors.
Earth tone colors such as green and yellow express calming, natural emotions.
Darker shades, such as red, may have the opposite effect on students. If your walls
are painted white, ask if you can change the color to a more natural-looking one.
An earth science teacher in Minnesota told me she painted her classroom walls to
match the environment. She divided her walls horizontally into thirds. For the
lower third she painted the wall tan to represent the earth. She painted the middle
third a light green to represent the forest. She then painted the top third pale blue
to represent the sky. Finally, she used a large natural sponge to blend a subtle tran-
sition in between the levels. She was surprised what a difference the colors made
and how much the students enjoyed the room.
6. Music mellows the mind. How do students enter your classroom? Are they loud
and boisterous? What would happen if you provided soothing, classical music as
they entered the class? Music has the power to calm the mind, body, and soul—
especially after students have just navigated the hallway to get from one class to
another. Some teachers profess that serene music, especially Baroque, can help
increase focus, especially during tests. Classical music is also ideal in introducing
a different genre of music to high school students.
Ultimately, the success of using any of the suggestions from this section depends upon the
style of the teacher. While some teachers prefer an austere classroom, others like to fashion a
more decorative environment. No one classroom setting fits all teachers. You need to find
what fits your needs and comfort level. Whatever classroom you decide to create, it will be
worthwhile to assess and monitor the environment and your management techniques. We
will now focus on tools that will assist in assessing and monitoring your inquiry classroom.
Assessing and Monitoring Your

Classroom Management Strategies
As you practice the strategies and methodologies of inquiry-based teaching, it becomes
necessary to take time to assess and monitor your progress. Several instruments available
to help you with this process were identified earlier in Chapter 4. We will again highlight
the importance of assessment by revisiting the instruments as a means of monitoring
classroom management.
Marshall, Horton, and White (2009) provide the Electronic Quality of Inquiry Protocol
(EQUIP). EQUIP considers several factors that support inquiry-based teaching and learn-
ing: time usage, instruction, discourse, assessment, and curriculum. The authors provide
rubrics for various levels of advancement (pre-inquiry, developing, proficient, and exem-
plary). Similarly, Sampson (2004), offers the Science Management Observation Protocol
(SMOP). Using a Lykert-type rating scale of 0 (never observed) to 4 (very descriptive),
peer observers can assess five different management issues: classroom characteristics and
routines, use of time and transitions, collaboration among students, safety, and care in use
of materials. Llewellyn (2007) offers two additional assessments: an Inquiry Rubric,
which assesses performance for curriculum development, lesson presentation, communi-
cation, engagement of students, classroom organization, questioning skills, assessment
procedures, and professional development, and an Inquiry Self-Assessment, based on the
same indicators as the Inquiry Rubric.
All four instruments provide different and unique lenses for observing and assessing
your progress toward creating an inquiry science classroom. Additionally, each serves as
a springboard for support group discussions regarding the elements of an exemplary
inquiry-based classroom.
Case Study: Investigating

Contour Lines
Scott Michel is an earth science teacher at Hilton High School in Hilton, New York. His
classroom layout is a lecture/lab combination with flattop student desks and separate
chairs that allows him flexibility in transitioning from teacher-centered to student-
centered activities within the class period. The classroom has ample shelves and storage
for books, materials, and equipment. In any classroom, the layout can contribute to or
prevent student disturbances. With multiple computer and supply areas located through-
out the room, the layout allows 25 earth science students to move about the room with
few incidents of congestion. Mr. Michel also has two wastebaskets and two pencil sharp-
ers located at opposite sides of the room to limit potential predicaments in those areas.
The lab tables are uncluttered so students can use them without having to move other
items from the tables. Mr. Michel usually has the ceiling lights turned off to allow natural
light from the windows to illuminate the room. The natural light provides enough bright-
ness for students to see the image from the LCD projector located in the front of the room
and makes the classroom feel more welcoming.
Before the bell rings to start the period, Mr. Michel stands at the door greeting stu-
dents by name as they enter. He often jokes with students by saying how happy he is
that they came to class today. He also uses this time to take attendance or hand back
assignments from the preceding day’s lesson. At the sound of the bell, Mr. Michel
begins the lesson standing behind the demonstration table in the front of the room
where he operates the computer, the document projector, and the LCD projector.
However, after the first slide is up, he makes a conscious effort to move out from behind
the table and walk about the room during his presentation, speaking from all corners of
the room. This allows him to monitor student engagement and keep all students on-
task (even the ones who sit in the back of the room to avoid being called upon).
Although the arrangement of desks changes depending on the assignment, today the
desks are arranged in groups of threes. Depending on the nature of the lesson, students
could be arranged in traditional rows and columns, in groups of twos or fours, or even
in a two-row semicircle.
The 60-minute lesson is divided into three parts, each lasting about 20 minutes. The
three parts are loosely based on the 5E Learning Cycle and include an introduction/
engagement phase, a teacher-led explanation phase, and the application phase. With high
school attention spans lasting somewhere between 15 and 20 minutes, Mr. Michel is con-
scious of changing the mode of instruction several times throughout the lesson. His mini-
lectures usually last no more than 20 minutes. This keeps the lesson moving along and
sustains on-task behaviors.
On this occasion, Mr. Michel plans the lesson around student engagement and oppor-
tunities for choice. Although his management style seems relaxed, it is predicated of care-
ful preparation that often is a deterrent to negative classroom behaviors. In other words,
effective student engagement minimizes inappropriate classroom behaviors. The lesson is
also purposely designed to shift the ownership of the assignment from the teacher to the
students. The scaffolding management style of guided, semi-guided, and independent
159
learning you are now going to read about works well—especially when students are being
introduced to inquiry- and argument-based learning.
The introduction starts with “the question of the day.” Mr. Michel poses the question
and also has it written on a sentence strip. By posting the question on the board, the
teacher is reminding himself to reserve time at the end of the period to review the essen-
tial question. Mr. Michel knows that if he does not return to the question at the end of the
lesson, most students will not pay any attention to it at the beginning of the class. This
way the question acts as both a “liftoff” and a “landing” to the day’s lesson.
Today’s lesson focuses on the function of contour lines (or isolines) in interpreting
weather, topographic, and earthquake maps. For the initial engagement exercise, students
are given a map with scattered elevations. The task involves drawing contour lines for vari-
ous elevations (see Figure 8.3). Starting on the right side of the map, Mr. Michel provides
guided instruction where the students label the contour lines for 45 and then 40 feet. The
students now know that each line will represent a 5-foot change in elevation. The teacher
then asks, “Does the map go to 50 feet?” Julius answers, “No.” The teacher responds, “How
do you know?” asking Julius to provide a more detailed explanation for his answer. Next,
moving down in elevation, the students are told to draw a contour line for the 35-foot eleva-
tion. After circling the 35-foot elevation at the upper right of the page, Mr. Michel instructs
them to “sketch a line between the points representing the 35-foot interval by estimating
where 35 feet would be between the elevation points.”
Figure 8.3
45 45 45 45 45 45 N
40 39
41 40 39 34 34 32 35
James 30
38 37 32 27 River 26 27
20
31 26 17 15 16
25 16 11 11 12 7
5 6
19 8 3 3
0
19 15 8
10 5
Great Island Bay
4 0
Scale: 1 inch = 500 feet

For the semi-guided phase of the lesson, Mr. Michel tells the students to circle the 30-foot
elevation and estimate where 30-foot elevation would be between the points on the map.
After a quick check, students move on to complete the 25-, 20-, 15-, 10-, and 5-foot intervals.
For the independent phase, students are fully responsible for completing the task.
They now connect the right-hand contour lines with the elevations on the left hand side.
Mr. Michel says, “You have two minutes to draw the contour lines for the left side of the
map and connect them across James River to the lines on the right-hand side.” The
teacher starts an online stopwatch at www.online-stopwatch.com and projects the clock
on the screen. By giving students a specific time limit to complete the task, the teacher sets
learning expectations and manages the instructional time efficiently. This way, students
get right to work and monitor their own time. At the end of the specified time, Mr. Michel
is sure to avoid asking, “Who needs more time?” In doing so, he negates the time expec-
tation and communicates to students that the time limit really doesn’t matter.
While the students are working independently, Mr. Michel walks around the class-
room to determine how well each student is doing with the task and answers any ques-
tion the groups may have. In speaking to small groups, the teacher is mindful of making
level eye contact when talking with the students. The level eye contact body language
suggests a concerned and attentive demeanor. It also diminishes the authoritarian status
of the teacher. There are times, such as in disciplinary situations, when Mr. Michel wants
to have his head above a student’s but not while responding to questions about a task.
Mr. Michel now instructs them to share their completed map with a partner. This
strategy, typically known as “Think-Pair-Share,” fosters critical thinking and engages all
the students in collaboration and communicating their ideas to others. Mr. Michel sees
two students going to the windows in back of the room. They place their papers one over
the other and hold them up to the incoming light. They can now see through both sheets
of paper and can compare one set of contour lines to another. The two sets are very simi-
lar. After a minute, Mr. Michel asks for a volunteer to come up to the front of the room
and fill in the contour lines for the left hand side. While the volunteer is filling out the
contour lines, Mr. Michel purposely walks to the back of the room. This way the seated
students can give their full attention to the volunteer. The casual move focuses the classes’
attention from the teacher to the student volunteer. After the volunteer returns to her seat,
Deborah, another student asks, “Does the elevation of Great Island Bay have to be at 0?”
Mr. Michel responds from the back of the room, “What do you think? Are all lakes at sea
level or at a 0 elevation?” Deborah answers, “No, I don’t think so.” The teacher responds
with the following question. “How do you know? Give us some evidence for your
answer.” Deborah then explains that some lakes are in mountain ranges way above sea
level. She appears quite confident in her reply.
Mr. Michel now returns to the front of the class as the second part of the lesson
involves a teacher-led discussion on the Mercalli Scale. While he continues his instruc-
tion, Mr. Michel asks a student to pass out a scale showing the intensity levels of earth-
quakes and summarizes the intensity number and damage effects. This keeps the flow of
his mini-lecture moving as he cites several recent earthquakes and attaches an intensity
number to each of the examples given.
Next, students apply their understanding of the Mercalli Scale. Mr. Michel shows
earthquake pictures from the Web and videos from YouTube taken during various famous
earthquakes. The students then act as seismologists to estimate the intensity level from I
to XII of the Mercalli scale for each example shown (Mercalli Intensity Scale ratings are
indicated in Roman numerals). To foster argumentation in the class, the students have to
make judgments as to the rating for each earthquake shown and provide evidence from
161
Figure 8.4
45 45 45 45 45 45 N
40
39
40
41 39 34 34 32
35
30
James
38 37 32 27 River 26 27
20
31 26 17 16
15
16 11 11 12 7
25
5 6
19 8 3 3
0
19 15 8
10 5
Great Island Bay
4 0
Scale: 1 inch = 500 feet
the picture or video to substantiate their claims. Other students are encouraged to agree
or disagree with the presenter’s conclusions and challenge the assumptions made. For
example, Mr. Michel uses the United States Geological Survey Web site (www.USGS.gov)
to show damage from the January 12, 2010, earthquake located 15 miles WSW of Port-
au-Prince in Haiti. The teacher asks, “Who has a scale reading of VIII for this earthquake?
Who has a scale reading of VII? Of VI? What evidence of damage do you see in the video
to substantiate your rating?” At the end of the discussion students want to know what the
actual rating for the earthquake was. Mr. Michel is hesitant in giving an answer. He
encourages students to trust their rating claims and the evidence they used to substanti-
ate their rating. But as typical 9th graders, they want to know the answer. After the ques-
tion is asked, Jeremy walks over to the computer and enters Haiti on the USGS Web site.
He announces to the class, “The intensity rating for Haiti was VII.”
One student in the class is originally from Haiti. Makayla tells a story of relatives still
living in Port-au-Prince amid the horror and aftermath of the quake. Her story goes on
for over 10 minutes; it provokes an awakening in the other students as to the ongoing
suffering and damage in the area. Although the unexpected comments take the class a bit
off schedule, Mr. Michel knows that building relationships is an essential aspect of a
learner-centered environment. Instead of cutting the student off, he welcomes her
remarks and knows that he can make up the time elsewhere. For now, the “voice” of the
student needed to be heard, and her story trumps his.
As a second example, Mr. Michel shows a video of the March 11, 2011, earthquake
located 230 miles NE of Tokyo, Japan, with an intensity level of IX. Again, the students
estimate the intensity level based on the amount of destruction and share their individual
appraisals and evidence with a partner.
As students observe the destruction between the Haiti and Japan earthquakes, Tyler
notices how the damage in Haiti seemed more extensive than in Japan—even though
Japan’s scale rating was much higher. Mr. Michel prompts students to think about the
earthquake precautions taken in the buildings between the two countries. The students
infer that since Japan sits on an earthquake zone, recently constructed buildings are
designed to better withstand earthquakes.
At the application level, working in groups of threes, students now use classroom
computers to choose an earthquake that occurred locally, nationally, or worldwide. Once
they choose an earthquake, they begin work on their assignment to locate the epicenter
of the quake on a map and draw contour lines as to damage caused to surrounding
areas emanating from the epicenter. Since Hilton is one of a few area high schools where
students are allowed (and encouraged) to use their iPhones in class to download infor-
mation for instructional use, students eagerly take out their cell phones to begin the
assignment.
One group remembered a recent earthquake in Ontario, Canada, that was felt in
Hilton, New York. The students go online to research the earthquake on the USGS Web
site and find out that the earthquake happened on June 23, 2010, with the epicenter
located 35 miles NNE of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. It had a recorded intensity level of V.
They then go online to archived issues of the local paper to read articles about local reac-
tions to the earthquake. They read about a woman in the area who said, “Hanging lamps
swayed from the ceiling.” Another eyewitness said, “I was in my car at a red light and the
car seemed to rock back and forth.” From these statements, the students identify
the intensity rating as level IV. Then, using a mechanical compass, they draw a circle with
the epicenter of the quake at the center of the circle and labeled all the points, including
Hilton, on the circumference circle as level IV. Using the distance from the epicenter to the
first circle, they estimate where the next least intensity level would be and draw another
circle to indicate level III. They do the same for levels II and I.
With 3 minutes remaining in the period, Mr. Michel announces that it’s time for stu-
dents to get back to their seats so he can review with them the essential question. The lesson
ends with Mr. Michel restating the essential question and choosing a student to answer. He
uses the essential question as a wrap-up exercise and to determine the degree to which
students understood the lesson. In this case, the essential question serves as a formative
assessment tool. If students demonstrate difficulty in answering the essential question, Mr.
Michel knows he needs to spend additional time during the next class to revisit the content
and present it in a different manner. As a closure to the lesson, Mr. Michel provides a brief
overview of tomorrow’s lesson. This provides a seamless transition from one lesson to
another. As the students leave the room for their next class, Brianna and Marisa want to take
today’s assignment even further by designing a model building that could withstand a
large earthquake. They ask Mr. Michel if they can come in during their lunchtime and
search the Internet for construction ideas. He smiles and welcomes their idea.

1. The case study you just read focuses on the management of the physical space as
well as the management of the instructional format of the lesson. Discuss how both
163
of these aspects are important to inquiry-based teachers. What specific manage-

ment strategies can you identify from the case study?
2. Design a lesson that shifts the ownership from the teacher to the student. Choose a
lesson you recently taught and modify the sequence to include a guided, a semi-
guided, and an independent section to the lesson.
3. Using your own classroom dimensions, design several seating arrangements
where students are sitting in straight rows and columns, arranged in groups of
twos, in groups of fours, and in a horse shoe or semicircle formation. What are the
advantages and disadvantages to each arrangement? When would it be appropri-
ate to use each of the layouts?
4. Teachers often post class rules in the room. These rules are usually written in terms
of negative behaviors and what not to do—such as “Don’t do this” or “Don’t do
that.” Sometimes classroom rules are written as reactive rules, meaning, “If you do
this, you’ll receive a stated punishment.” Are there damaging effects to reactive
rules? Do reactive rules really prevent misbehavior? Write five simple, basic class-
room rules that are oriented toward building positive teacher-student and student-
student relationships as well as a creative learning environment, five rules that
make students feel safe and secure, or five rules that emphasize a sense of belong-
ing and acceptance. Review the habits of mind listed in Chapter 1. Consider writ-
ing rules for responsibility, motivation, self-control, persistence, commitment, and
collaboration. Share your rules with a colleague and discuss the benefits of having
students create their own classroom rules. Several rules may include the following:
•• Strive to improve your performance each day.

•• Use your time in class effectively.
•• Enjoy working in science.
•• Be supportive and respectful of others’ efforts.
5. What is the advantage of having students work in small groups? When is group
work not appropriate? What criteria should you consider when assigning students
to work in a small group? When should students be allowed to choose their own
group members? In a heterogeneous class setting, how would you assign students
with special or language needs to a group?
6. Yolanda is a first-year teacher at an inner-city high school. Many of the hands-on
science activities she plans go amiss. She openly complains that several of the stu-
dents in her class are loud and disruptive. In the teachers’ room, Yolanda voices her
frustration about these unmanageable students by saying, “They just don’t want to
learn anything.” How does shifting the blame to the students prevent Yolanda from
being proactive and taking constructive actions toward resolving the problem she
faces? What suggestions can you offer to Yolanda?
9
Developing Effective
Questioning Skills
B ecause questions are an elemental aspect of inquiry and argumentation, this chap-
ter is one of the most important sections of the book. In the midst of inquiry and
argumentation, questions provide the springboard for scientific investigations,
discussions, and debates. In many ways, questions are the drivers that transport students
from what they initially know to what you want them to know, whereas inquiries are the
vehicles that seek out their best ideas and steer them on the expressway to knowledge.
Therefore, honing your ability to ask probing and thought-provoking questions is a nec-
essary prerequisite to becoming an effective inquiry-based science teacher. According to
the National Research Council (2012),
Asking questions is essential to developing scientific habits of mind. Even for

individuals who do not become scientists or engineers, the ability to ask well-
defined questions is an important component of science literacy, helping to make
them critical consumers of scientific knowledge. (p. 54)
Thus, by the end of grade 12, students should be able to
•• formulate and refine questions that can be answered empirically in a science

classroom;
•• ask probing questions that seek to identify the premises of an argument, request
further elaboration, refine a research question, or challenge the interpretation of a
data set; and
•• note features, patterns, or contradictions in observations and ask questions about
them. (NRC, 2012)
To achieve these objectives both teachers and students will need to become increasingly
skillful in asking and answering thoughtful questions.
During a session of my graduate-level science-methods course, Lauren, a high school
biology teacher, asked, “Students in my biology classes seldom ask good questions. How
164
DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE QUESTIONING SKILLS
165
can I get them to ask better questions?” That single question generated enormous interest,
with many others in the class voicing the same concern about their students.
After further discussion, Lauren willingly admitted that she frequently first asks a
student a question to which she has a desired answer in mind. Then, after the student
gives a response, Lauren follows up the response with a comment about the student’s
answer. This questioning format is often referred to as IRE, standing for Initiation,
Response, and Evaluation. And although this pattern of questioning is typically observed
in many high school science classes and can be useful when reviewing for tests, it usually
does not foster argumentation or critical-reasoning skills (Michaels, Shouse, &
Schweingruber, 2008). Studies indicate that the best strategy for increasing students’
questioning abilities is for teachers to model effective questioning techniques themselves.
Thus, the purpose of this chapter is to assist preservice and practicing science teachers in
developing excellent questioning skills and strategies. In addition, it stimulates you to
question your own teaching methodologies and consider alternative methods of engag-
ing students through questioning.
The Purpose of Questions

How many questions do you think most high school science teachers ask during a
45-minute period? 20? 30? 40? Several studies estimate that teachers ask about 75 ques-
tions during a typical lecture/discussion period. Similarly, how many questions do you
think most high school students ask during the same 45-minute period? 20? More than
20? Well, depending on the nature of the class and the topic of the lesson, some studies
estimate that on average students ask less than 10 questions a class period: meaning
that most of the questions posed are generated by the teacher. In inquiry-based lessons,
teachers try to turn that statistic around by having students ask as many questions as
they do.
Since we already are cognizant that questions are a fundamental aspect of inquiry and
argumentation, let’s consider the varied uses of questions. Llewellyn (2007) states the
purposes of questions in high school science classrooms are to
•• initiate, engage, or provoke a lesson, discussion, or investigation;

•• provide direction to a lesson, discussion, or investigation;
•• assess students’ prior knowledge;
•• uncover students’ naïve conceptions;
•• stimulate higher-level, critical-thinking skills;
•• prompt students to a particular answer or conclusion;
•• focus, clarify, or guide an argument;
•• have students justify a position;
•• challenge students’ responses;
•• keep students on-task;
•• review for an upcoming assessment;
•• assess student progress; and
•• reflect on and review material at the end of a lesson.
In the previous chapter, you read how an essential question can initiate a lesson or
discussion. Now, let’s move on to two categories of questions: expository and exploratory
questions. In this case, expository questions are verbal queries, whereas exploratory
questions are more investigative-oriented questions.
Bloom’s Taxonomy
Before we get into the nitty-gritty of expository questions, let’s first review an organiza-
tion for categorizing the level of various questions—Bloom’s Taxonomy. Since many read-
ers are probably familiar with Bloom’s Taxonomy, we won’t spend a lot of time on the
topic, but provided below is a brief summary of the six levels of cognitive domains and
guidance on how to apply them to the art of asking and writing questions.
First of all, it’s important to note that the taxonomy, when introduced by Benjamin
Bloom in 1956, was originally intended for writing educational objectives. But since it
had seemingly little effect on curricula, educators subsequently used the levels for
evaluation and assessment: thus applying the taxonomy as a means to codify a hierar-
chy of thinking skills for test items. Bloom’s taxonomy system is divided into six
levels or categories: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and
evaluation.
At the knowledge level, students remember and recall terminology and information
previously learned in class to give factual answers that require them to use basic cognitive
thinking skills such as define, state, list, or match. At the comprehension level, students
make use of the information learned to reword or explain its meaning. Cognitive verbs in
this level have students classify, describe, explain, generalize, or summarize. At the appli-
cation level, students use information previously learned and apply it to new situations
or solve simple problems. Several cognitive verbs in this level have students construct,
develop, predict, produce, or transfer.
In general, the lower/middle level domains (knowledge, comprehension, and appli-
cation) include information-seeking questions, whereas the next three middle-/
higher-level domains (analysis, synthesis, and evaluation) include information-processing
questions.
At the analysis level, students break down information into its component parts to
draw conclusions and inferences or to find evidence to support their assumptions and
generalizations. The cognitive thinking skills at this level have students differentiate, pri-
oritize, compare and contrast, or find patterns and relationships. At the synthesis level,
students make use of individual pieces of the information previously learned to produce
a whole new entity. Cognitive verbs at this level have students adapt, combine, compose,
reconstruct, or invent. Finally, at the evaluation level, students make judgments as to the
value of the information learned and communicate their personal opinions on the topic.
Several cognitive verbs at this level have students appraise, argue, critique, defend, jus-
tify, or support.
The chart below gives an overview of the different domains, the key science-related
process verbs associated with those domains, and sample questions as examples for each
domain.
Low and Mid-Level

Questions Key Science-Related Verbs Examples
Knowledge/Recall Copy, define, identify, label, list, •• What is . . . ?
match, memorize, name, recall, •• Where is . . . ?
record, select, show, state, tell •• What answer did you get?
•• Tell me what happened.
167
Low and Mid-Level

Comprehension Categorize, clarify, classify, •• Why does that matter?
compare, conclude, contrast, •• How would you compare . . . ?
demonstrate, describe, discuss, •• What’s the main idea . . . ?
distinguish, estimate, explain, •• What can you say about . . . ?
generalize, group, illustrate, infer, •• What do you mean by that?
interpret, order, outline, predict,
relate, rephrase, report, restate,
review, show, summarize, translate
Application Apply, calculate, choose, compute, •• What if . . . ?
construct, determine, develop, •• What would happen if . . . ?
extend, elaborate, identify, •• How come . . . ?
illustrate, modify, model, •• Why does that apply to this
organize, prepare, plan, select, situation?
solve, transfer, use •• What does that remind you of?
•• What examples can you give?
•• How would you classify . . . ?
Mid- and High-Level

Analysis Analyze, arrange, categorize, •• What evidence supports your
classify, compare, contrast, claim?
conclude, design, detect, diagram, •• What conclusion can you
differentiate, discover, distinguish, draw?
discriminate, examine, •• How reliable is your data?
experiment, hypothesize, infer, •• What are the parts of . . . ?
inspect, interpret, investigate, •• What evidence do you have to
survey, test support . . . ?
•• How would you interpret the
data you collected?
•• What conclusions can you draw
from the data?
•• How is ____ like _____?
•• How does _____ affect _____?
•• How is ____ dependent upon
_____?
Synthesis Adapt, build, collaborate, •• How come . . . ?
combine, compile, compose, •• How would you
conclude, construct, create, summarize . . . ?
deduct, design, develop, devise, •• What would happen if . . . ?
elaborate, estimate, formulate, •• How could you test another
generalize, imagine, improve, variable?
invent, modify, plan, predict, •• Can you develop an
propose, solve, speculate, theorize, explanation from your results?
wonder •• Can you construct a model to
support your explanation?
(Continued)
(Continued)
Mid- and High-Level

Evaluation Appraise, argue, assess, conclude, •• How do you feel about . . . ?
convince, decide, deduce, defend, •• How can you justify your
evaluate, infer, interpret, judge, answer?
justify, persuade, rate, rank, •• What made you think that?
recommend, revise, test, value, •• Why do you think your
validate assumption/conclusion/claim
is correct?
•• What supporting evidence do
you have to substantiate your
assumption/claim?
•• If you had to do the
investigation over again, how
would you do it differently?
•• How would you rate your
performance?
From this brief description, you can see that questions (whether they are presented
orally in a discussion or written on a unit test) can promote a particular level of cognitive
thinking and response. Just by comparing the thinking skills associated with the knowl-
edge level versus the evaluation level, you can appreciate how scientific inquiry and
argumentation promote higher and more critical thinking skills. If this is true, why do
high school science teachers ask so many knowledge/recall questions during a lesson?
Many teachers may respond by saying, “I know I should ask more critical thinking ques-
tions BUT . . . ,”
“Knowledge and recall domain questions are easier to ask.”

“There’s a lot of content students have to remember.”
“Students need to know facts and terminology for upcoming tests.”
“Knowledge and recall questions are easier to correct.”
“I have a limited amount of classroom time. I need to keep the lesson moving. I need
short, to-the-point answers from students.”
“Short-answer questions help control the class and focus the discussion.”
Given the statements above, which ones do you think are credible and which ones are
not? Select the statements you agree with and the ones you do not. For each one you do
not agree with, write a counterstatement. You may choose to phrase your rebuttals by
using the following “they say/I say” template:
I know that some teachers say _________________________ (their claim); however,

I think _________________________ (my claim) because _______________________
(my evidence and reasoning).
Share your responses with a partner and justify your counterclaims.

169
Readers should note that in 2002, David Krathwohl offered an updated revision to
Bloom’s Taxonomy using the following categories: Remembering, Understanding,
Applying, Analyzing, Evaluating, and Creating. And in 2007, Robert Marzano and John
Kendall proposed another classification based on the following categories: Retrieval,
Comprehension, Analysis, Knowledge Utilization, Metacognition, and Self-System
Thinking. Because of the familiarity most educators have with Bloom’s original taxonomy,
that classification was used as the basis of this book.
Expository Questions
The domain of the questions can be used to your advantage once you distinguish between
the function of lower, more basic-thinking levels to upper, more critical-thinking levels.
Expository questions based on knowledge, comprehension, and application levels are
best for purposes of recitation, that is, questions that foster the following:
•• Short-answer responses for understanding of details

•• Drill and practice
•• Reaffirmation of the teacher’s authority and control
•• Formative assessment of lower-level thinking skills
•• Retention-based information
•• Review for a test
Expository questions based on analysis, synthesis, and evaluation levels are best for
purposes of discussion, that is, questions that foster the following:
•• Long-answer responses with follow-up elaborations

•• The opportunity to “think out loud”
•• Sharing of diverse points of view
•• Students to clarify their understandings
•• The providing of supporting evidence to assumptions and claims made
•• The making of connections of content to new situations
•• Transfer-based information
•• Students to reflect on their own beliefs and understandings
What’s important to remember is that each level or domain has its own distinct
purpose. Ultimately, a well-planned lesson contains an array of preplanned questions
that are selected and used for a particular situation or to match the need of a student’s
specific learning style.
Quality Questions Model Quality Thinking

Samantha, an 11th-grade physics teacher, equates classroom questioning to “fishing” for
the correct answer. Sam suggests, “You need an interesting and relevant ‘worm’ at the
end of the hook to lure students into biting.” Do you agree with Samantha’s assertion?
Samantha claims she tries to employ this philosophy in her questioning skills by pur-
posely focusing on specific content and critical-thought processes that are communicated
clearly and concisely to elicit student interpretations of what the question is asking as
well as their understanding of the content involved in answering the question. When it
appears to Sam that a student may not understand the question being asked, she’ll say,
“Tell me what you think the question is asking.” In this way, the teacher tries to “get
inside the head” of the student to unravel any misconceptions or misunderstandings get-
ting in the way of answering the question. The strategy also allows her to shift from
“guess what I’m thinking” type questions toward “what is the student thinking” type
questions. This simple, unassuming assertion shifts the custody of the question from the
teacher to the student—where it rightly belongs.
Questioning Techniques
We are now beginning to better understand why teachers need to master the art and sci-
ence of asking quality questions when creating a learner-centered classroom. In elemen-
tary school, children seem to ask an infinite number of questions. As they reach high
school, however, and peer relationships get a foothold in their life, their reluctance to ask
questions in class often increases. During high school, students tend to become more pas-
sive and are more accustomed to occasionally providing token answers to questions
posed by the teacher. This can significantly interfere with the students’ ability to formu-
late questions and conduct self-directed inquiries. Transitioning reluctant high school
science students into the position of formulating their own questions can take work.
Therefore, posing good questions is central to a teacher’s instructional repertoire, especially
in an inquiry-based classroom. The manner in which a question is posed and positioned is
equally important as the question itself. Therefore, teachers with good questioning skills
enhance the inquiry process and develop more opportunities for student-centered, self-
directed learning. The following 16 tips are tried-and-true suggestions useful in develop-
ing a culture for questioning. Rather than implementing all 16 at once, gradually build
your repertoire by choosing two or three strategies a week to try.
Tip 1: Avoid “chorus” questions. Chorus or group response questions are those questions the
teacher asks to which anyone can shout out an answer. When teachers ask indirect chorus
questions for anyone and everyone to answer, they often get inappropriate answers.
Suppose an earth science teacher asks the question, “What type of rock is limestone?” The
students respond, “Sedimentary.” Did all the students really answer correctly? Did some
students quietly or to themselves answer, “Metamorphic”? The teacher doesn’t know. It is
nearly impossible to determine, through a chorus or class response, how many students
actually know the answer to the question. Other students may answer correctly when they
hear the correct answer from the class. As an alternative to chorus questions, pose questions
to an individual student, not the entire class. Similarly, avoid asking questions that are
directed to everyone in the class, such as, “Is everyone finished?” or “Does everyone
understand?” Instead, have students respond with a nonverbal behavior, such as, “Raise
your hand if you are not finished” or “Raise your hand if you need more time.” Asking for
a nonverbal behavior for recognition decreases opportunities for students to shout out and
maintains a quieter classroom environment. The video from Saturday Night Live referenced
in the Questions for Reflection and Discussion section at the end of this chapter offers a
light-hearted look at a teacher’s ineffective questioning skills.
Tip 2: Think about when to use the student’s name when posing a direct question. Teachers can
place the student’s name either before or after the question. Each has its own specific
purpose. By placing the student’s name before the question, as in, “Josh, explain the atomic
171
exchange in a double replacement reaction,” all other students may “shut down” as soon
as they know that Josh, not they, must answer the question. This immediately takes the
rest of the class “off the hook.” Another option is to pose the question, follow it with a
pause of 3 to 5 seconds, and then state the name of the student you wish to call on.
During that brief amount of time, all students have to think of the answer because they
don’t know who is going to be called on. The brief pause invites all students to actively
think about an answer, rather than the first student to raise his or her hand. By placing the
student’s name at the end of the question, the teacher keeps all the students “on the hook”
a little longer. Pausing also gives students a chance to understand the question, since not
all students grasp the essence of a question immediately or at the same time.
Sometimes teachers use questions as a disciplinary technique. If Josh is daydreaming
or not paying attention in class, providing the question first and then adding Josh’s name
at the end of the question only serves to embarrass Josh because he has no warning a ques-
tion is coming his way. Because his name doesn’t precede the question, the teacher risks
further alienating him from the class discussion. That means effective teachers do not use
questions as a form of discipline. Questions should serve instructional roles, not punitive
purposes. An alternative to getting Josh engaged in the class’s discussion is to first get
Josh’s attention, ask him a question that you are sure he can answer, and then follow up
the answer with positive reinforcement. “Josh, here’s a question for you. Are you ready?
Which of the following reactions represent a single replacement reaction?” After Josh’s
response, the teacher says, “Excellent, good job!” This same strategy may also be useful
when getting non-volunteers to answer questions. Again, precede a question with the stu-
dent’s name and then pose it. Over time, the non-volunteer students will begin to feel more
comfortable in answering questions, especially when they receive the teacher’s praise.
Tip 3: As we saw in Samantha’s case, effective teachers avoid “guess what I’m thinking of” type
questions. When doing so, the teacher poses a question with a particular desired response
in mind. When this happens and the teacher does not get the answer he or she is looking
for, the teacher may, through facial expressions or body language, indicate a wrong
answer and call on another student until the correct answer is given. All the answers
offered by the students may make sense from the standpoint of the students who provide
the responses; however, they just aren’t the responses the teacher was fishing for. Teachers
should not ignore wrong answers. Most often when a student gives a wrong answer, it
points to a misconception the student may have. Good inquiry teachers are just as
concerned with wrong answers as they are with right answers.
Tip 4: Avoid repeating student answers. When a teacher poses a question and a student
provides a correct response, what happens next? Usually the teacher (a) responds by
saying, “Okay,” (b) says nothing and goes on to another student, (c) provides positive
feedback for a correct response, or (d) repeats the student’s answer. Observe any high
school classroom, and far too often you will hear the teacher repeating the answer a
student gives. Some teachers say they do it out of habit, while others say that students
talk so softly that the rest of the class can’t hear them. In either case, by repeating students’
answers, teachers reinforce the notion that students do not have to speak up because the
teachers will always repeat, in a louder voice, what they said. In this situation, the teacher
is the conduit of the conversation. All the conversation goes “through” the teacher.
Repeating student answers also communicates to the class that the students do not have
to listen to other students’ responses, just what the teacher says. In creating a classroom
culture of inquiry, everybody’s responses are important and should be heard. When the
teacher repeats the student’s answer, he or she, in a sense, is communicating to the class
that “I will call on a student, the student will tell me the answer, and then I’ll tell the rest
of the class what the student said.” Consider this as an alternative.
Teacher: “What are the three types of rock? [Pause] Gino?”

Gino: [Speaking softly] “Sedimentary, metamorphic, and igneous.”
Teacher: [Pointing to a student across the room] “Michael, did you hear that answer?”
Michael: “No.”
Teacher: [Allowing a pause]
Gino: [Speaking louder this time so Michael can hear him] “Sedimentary,
metamorphic, and igneous.”
Teacher: [Giving a thumbs-up sign] “Correct. That’s great!”
By doing this, the teacher is prompting Gino to speak up and communicate to the
entire class, not just the teacher. The pause that the teacher provides is a nonthreatening
prompt for Gino to speak up so everyone can hear him. With enough practice and
consistent use, the voices of the students will rise so they will respect each other’s
contributions, thus creating a community of learners.
Tip 5: Apportion questions equally and equitably by gender. Unknowingly, both male and
female teachers often tend to pose more questions and take more responses to their
questions from males than females in high school science classes. Also be aware that
males are more likely to shout out an answer, thus receiving the teacher’s attention. The
teacher can also pose questions by gender to keep more students engaged by saying, “I’m
going to ask one of the boys a question and then follow it up with a question to one of the
girls.” In this case, all the students are listening to the question in anticipation of being
called on to answer it or the follow-up question. Again, remember to use the pause
strategy between the question and the student’s name. This allows for “wait-time,” which
will be presented later in the chapter.
Tip 6: Move about the classroom when asking questions. A teacher’s position in a room can
have a profound effect on participation in answering questions. When a teacher positions
himself or herself in the front of the class, the tendency is to acknowledge students in the
immediate area, in this case, the front of the class. A teacher can enhance his questioning
skills by walking about the room during a discussion-based lesson and consciously
calling on students across the room. Try calling on a student out of your direct line of sight
and encourage the student to answer and make eye contact with the other students in the
class, not you. This helps students respond to each other rather than directly to the
teacher, encouraging the development of a community of learners.
Tip 7: Avoid rhetorical questions where students admit to themselves that they do not
understand a particular concept. Questions that fall under this category usually include
the following:
•• Does everyone understand that?

•• Who doesn’t understand what I just said?
•• Isn’t that right?
173
•• Who didn’t get that down?

•• Who doesn’t get it?
Tip 8: Know when to answer a student’s question. What is the first thing you think of when
a student asks a question? Giving an answer? Before answering the question for the
student, the teacher should think, “Does the student have enough background information
to answer his own question?” If you think the answer is “yes,” consider posing prompts
back to the student to assist him in answering his own question. By doing this, you
encourage students to think critically and for themselves. Learning to answer your own
questions is an essential aspect of inquiry-based classrooms. Often, the teacher can turn
the question back to the student or to the entire class by asking, “What do you think?”
When the teacher continuously serves as the source for all answers, the opportunity for
whole-class critical thinking can be lost. If you decide, however, that the student does not
have the appropriate background information to answer the question, providing prompts
and rephrasing may further frustrate both the student and the teacher. In this case, it may
be more reasonable to provide the student with an answer.
Tip 9: Realize not all questions that teachers pose result in immediate answers. There are times
when a student may have the background knowledge for a concept but just doesn’t
understand the question being asked. Frequently, the tendency for the teacher is to repeat
the question as originally stated or ask the same question to another student. Neither of
these options models good questioning strategies. When a student cannot answer a
question, first consider rephrasing it. The question may make sense to the sender (the
teacher) but not to the receiver (the student). Second, consider asking another student to
rephrase the question to the class. It might be that the manner in which the teacher asks
the question does not make sense to the students. Sometimes students are great at
“translating” an adult’s question into a form that adolescents can understand. Third,
don’t be too quick to let a student off the hook by calling on someone else. Continue to
rephrase the question or provide prompts to help the student answer the question. If the
teacher goes on to another student, he or she communicates to the class that students can
avoid answering just by claiming “I don’t know.”
Tip 10: Use wait-time techniques. Following up on Tip 9, a strategy developed by Mary
Budd Rowe at the University of Florida, is a constructivist approach to questioning. From
her research, Rowe (1974, 1987) argues that most teachers wait less than .5 seconds
between the end of the question and identifying the person chosen to respond and less
than .5 seconds after the student’s response before commenting or going on. She claims
that students need time to process their thoughts and replies to a question before
responding, as well as needing time to complete their thoughts and replies while speaking.
From this conjecture, Rowe devised wait-time 1 and wait-time 2 strategies. She suggests
teachers pose a question and wait a full 3 seconds before calling on a student. This spell
(called wait-time 1) allows all students to make sense of the question and formulate an
appropriate response. Next, Rowe suggests teachers again pause 3 seconds after the
student’s response (called wait-time 2) and before making any additional comments. Her
research shows that by providing students “think-time” they
1. give longer answers,

2. provide more details and supporting evidence to their answers and claims,
3. ask more questions,
4. respond less with “I don’t know,”

5. engage more in active participation, and
6. demonstrate more confidence in their answers.
If you are trying to implement wait-time in your classroom and find it hard to
remember “the wait,” tape a 3 by 5 card on the back wall of the room with a big “3”
written on it. This will act as a reminder.
Tip 11: Don’t interrupt a student’s answer in the middle of the response. Too often, a teacher
poses a question that a student begins to answer correctly, and realizing the answer is
correct, the teacher interrupts the student in the middle of his or her answer to provide
further elaboration of the response. Over time, this communicates to students that their
opinions are not as important as the teacher’s. When a student provides an answer to a
question, be patient and wait until she completes her response. Doing this will encourage
the student to give a complete, thoughtful response and encourage higher-order thinking
skills at the analysis and synthesis levels.
Tip 12: Don’t ignore wrong answers. Because the answers that students give are based on
their prior knowledge (and naive conceptions), be interested in their wrong answers as
well as their right ones. Wrong answers are an “open door” to understanding student
misconceptions. Too often, we pass over wrong answers and move on to another student
until we get the correct answer we’re looking for. Listen for “red flags” in student answers
and focus follow-up questions to help correct the misunderstanding.
Tip 13: Follow up a student’s response by asking for supporting details. After posing a question
and receiving a correct response, what do you do next? The teacher has several
alternatives. She could go on to ask another student another question. She could ask the
first student to elaborate on the answer with additional supporting details. She could
follow up the student answer with the question, “Why do you think that?” Or she could
ask a second student to respond to the first student’s answer. Depending on the situation,
any of these alternatives may be appropriate. In creating a classroom culture of inquiry,
consider the importance of inter-student communication where pupils react and respond
to others’ answers. This encourages everyone to be active listeners and respect other
participants’ points of view.
Tip 14: Prepare questions in advance. It’s suggested that as many as 75% to 80% of
questions asked in high school science lectures are at the knowledge/recall level. To
avoid all lower-domain questioning and stimulate critical thinking, plan, in advance,
five to ten discussion questions that require higher-level thinking skills (application,
analysis, synthesis, and evaluation) to guide the conversation to higher levels of
cognition. Ten carefully planned questions that require critical-level thinking are better
than 50 spontaneous random questions. Effectively planned questions act as “cognitive
hooks” to scaffold student learning to deeper understandings and increased achievement.
By choosing varying levels of questions, the teacher prompts the classroom discussion
to challenge students’ thinking. Consider the following questions for example:
•• What is the phenotypic proportion of offspring for a cross AABB × AaBb?

(application)
175
•• What is the relationship in a pond community between the food supply and the
population size? (analysis)
•• Given the data collected, how do you determine if your hypothesis is valid?
(synthesis)
•• Does the evidence collected during your investigation substantiate your previous
assumptions and concluding claims? If not, why not? (evaluation)
Tip 15: Use alternative response strategies. As an alternative to typical teacher-student

responses, consider using a “pair and share” technique that involves everyone in
answering. After the teacher poses a question, have each student write his or her answer
down on paper.
Then have students pair with a partner and share answers. Tell students to look for
similarities and differences in their answers. Choose several pairs to share their responses
with the entire class.
Tip 16: Consider using nonfiction science articles from primary sources: magazines such
as Science News and Scientific American, as well as your local newspaper covering
environmental and scientific topics. Choose articles on current, relevant science topics
that interest adolescents and may affect their future. The pros and cons of hydrofracking,
the pros and cons of offshore oil drilling, the effect of acid rain, the use of farm fertilizers
in watersheds, and controlling invasive species are five such examples. Have students
summarize the articles for homework and write three to five questions for further
discussion in class the next day. Encourage in-class student-to-student dialogues where
they share their summaries and questions in small groups. Foster scientific argumentation
by having students either agree or disagree with the author and provide evidence or
opinions as counterclaims.
Careful planning of classroom questions can foster an inductive thinking model and
whole-class discourse. As inquiry-based teachers hone their questioning skills, they
provide opportunities to internalize learning, motivate students to challenge their models
and thoughts, and provide thoughtful, engaging discussions around topics that are
relevant to students.
Just Tell Me the Answer

Aside from the challenges in making time to do inquiry, the initial resistance of students
to inquiry-based instruction can also be an obstacle to overcome. That’s because students
are accustomed to getting an answer from their teacher.
When we were born, we were given two ears and one mouth. Do you think we were
brought into this existence to listen twice as much as we talk? As a teacher, you may feel
it’s your job, even your professional responsibility, to provide answers for the questions
that students ask. A good inquiry-based teacher, however, refrains from always providing
the answer. A good inquiry teacher first listens to the question being asked and then, in
his or her mind, pauses to determine whether the student has enough ability to answer the
question on his or her own. If the answer is “yes,” then rephrasing the question or provid-
ing a prompt usually enables the student to get back on track in answering his or her own
question. Sometimes the prompt will help the student to clarify the concept that is puz-
zling to him or her. Sometimes the prompt can suggest that the student recall previously
learned information to answer the question. Sometimes the teacher can simply respond
with, “Well, what do you think?”
If, however, the teacher feels the student does not have sufficient background to
answer the question even after giving a prompt, it may be best to just come out and guide
the student to the understanding desired or give the student the answer. Providing
prompts to a student without adequate background can lead to frustration on the part of
the teacher as well as the student. This explains why the teacher’s pause at the end of the
student’s question is so essential. That brief, 3-second pause allows the teacher to assess
the level of understanding the student has and provide an appropriate response to the
question.
Practicing temperance in answering questions is not always as easy to do as it sounds.
Students, even from their earliest grades, expect answers to their questions. That’s why
when students experience an inquiry-based teacher who wants them to try to answer
their own questions, one hears, “Why don’t you just tell me the answer?” On the one
hand, telling students the answer might seem like the normal thing to do; on the other
hand, refraining from always giving the answers helps students think creatively and
logically—a first step in nurturing a community of inquirers.
The Power of Praise and

Positive Reinforcement
We all like to know when we are doing a good job. This is true especially for high
school students. When used correctly, effective praise confirms and commends an
acceptable answer. It also boosts learning and positive behaviors. Simply saying to a
student that the answer she just gave is correct is not praise. Saying, “Good job” or
“Now you’re really thinking” is a form of praise. Be mindful that praise should be
authentic and credible. Giving praise for halfhearted replies dilutes the power of
positive reinforcement.
Avoid responding with “okay” to answers. Saying “okay” is a milquetoast response.
If you don’t like saying “Good job,” consider giving nonlinguistic or signaled responses
such as a “thumbs-up” or by showing an excited facial expression with a nod of the head.
Using gestures and appropriate body language can also be an alternative way to show
appreciation for a well-thought-out answer.
A Three-Step Approach to
Better Questioning
Now it’s time to put the tips and suggestions together to structure a three-step approach
to better questioning.
Step 1: Pose a direct question and pause 3 seconds (wait-time 1). Select an individual
to answer and listen attentively to the student’s response. After the reply is given, pause
another 3 seconds (wait-time 2) without repeating the answer.
Step 2: Redirect the attention to another student. Select a second individual and ask a
follow-up question. The question can serve to prompt another response, probe for further
understanding, or clarify the position of the responder. Listen attentively to the answer.
After the reply is given, pause another 3 seconds (wait-time 2) without repeating the
answer.
177
Step 3: Make an acknowledgment to both students, offering praise for their answers
and contribution to the class discussion.
The following chart summarizes the three steps and lists suggested science-related
thinking verbs and questions that correlate with each domain of Bloom’s Taxonomy.
Step 1: Ask a Question
Low and Mid-Level

Knowledge/Recall Copy, define, identify, label, list, •• What is . . . ?
match, memorize, name, recall, •• Where is . . . ?
record, select, show, state, tell •• What answer did you get?
•• Tell me what happened.
Comprehension Categorize, clarify, classify, •• Why does that matter?
compare, conclude, contrast, •• How would you
demonstrate, describe, discuss, compare . . . ?
distinguish, estimate, explain, •• What’s the main idea . . . ?
generalize, group, illustrate, •• What can you say about . . . ?
infer, interpret, order, outline, •• What do you mean by that?
predict, relate, rephrase, report,
restate, review, show,
summarize, translate
Application Apply, calculate, choose, •• What if . . . ?
compute, construct, determine, •• What would happen if . . . ?
develop, extend, elaborate, •• How come . . . ?
identify, illustrate, modify, •• Why does that apply to this
model, organize, prepare, plan, situation?
select, solve, transfer, use •• What does that remind you of?
•• What examples can you give?
•• How would you classify . . . ?
Step 2: Ask a Follow-Up Question
Follow-Up Questions Examples

Clueing and •• Do you think if you tried this . . . ?
Prompting (acts as a •• Does anyone have a response to Carl’s answer?
“starter” to initiate •• How else can you answer that question?
a response) •• What else?
•• Can you give me some supporting details to defend your answer?
•• Can you elaborate on your answer?
Probing (acts to •• What makes you think that?
have the student •• Why do you think that happened?
elaborate or extend •• What did you mean by that?
a response) •• What are you thinking about?
(Continued)
(Continued)
•• Can you be more specific about your answer?

•• Why does that matter?
•• Tell me more about that.
•• What else do you know about that?
•• What steps did you take to arrive at that conclusion?
Clarifying (acts to •• What makes you think that?
have the student •• Why did you say that?
further elucidate, •• What did you mean by that?
defend, or justify a •• Can you answer that in a different way?
response) •• Can you be more specific?
•• What evidence do you have to support your answer?
•• Why did you say that?
Step 3: Respond to the Answer With an Acknowledgment
Acknowledgment Comments Examples

Praise and Positive •• Good answer.
Reinforcement •• Wow, that’s good.
•• I like your answer.
•• I admire your ability and willingness to respond so
thoughtfully.
•• Now you’re thinking like a scientist!
•• Your answer is a good example of critical thinking.
•• Your answer adds to our discussion.
•• Your answer demonstrates you are really thinking.
•• You’re a good thinker.
•• Nonverbal gesture: applaud or thumbs-up
Appreciation •• Thank you.
•• I appreciate your answer.
•• The class values your input.
•• I’m pleased you gave such a thoughtful answer.
•• Congratulations on giving a great answer.
•• Nonverbal gesture: applaud or thumbs-up
Recalibrate Your Questioning Skills

I hope this chapter has provided you with ways to recalibrate and hone your questioning
skills. But, as with all other skills, developing them takes time and practice. Before we
move on to exploratory questions, let’s summarize some of the suggestions for improving
the delivery of expository questions.
You an recalibrate your questioning skills by
•• adopting a set of classroom norms that support quality questioning,

•• preparing questions in advance of a lesson,
•• avoiding chorus questions and repeating student answers,
•• involving all students in answering questions,
179
•• using wait-time techniques,

•• using redirected strategies to encourage student-to-student interactions,
•• providing clues and prompts when students have difficulty answering questions or
need to elaborate their answers, and
•• providing acknowledgment and positive feedback to responses.
Exploratory Questions
It has been said, “A question well stated is a solution half solved.” From that quote we
can appreciate how writing a good question is the first step in designing a good inquiry.
References to exploratory questions are found throughout all eight practices for K−12
science classrooms as recommended by the Framework (NRC, 2012). In fact, the Framework
reinforces the importance of asking questions as the first of the eight essential practices by
stating, “The learning experiences provided for students should engage them with funda-
mental questions about the world and with how scientists have investigated and found
answers to those questions” (p. 9); furthermore, “Framing a curriculum around such sets
of questions helps to communicate relevance and salience to this audience” (p. 28).
If high school science students are to become experienced with the processes of
inquiry and argumentation, they need to have ongoing opportunities to formulate explor-
atory and researchable questions. Framing such questions will lead to deciding what data
need to be collected, what variables should be controlled, what tools or instruments are
needed to gather the data, what charts or tables need to be designed to record the appro-
priate data, and eventually how to incorporate percent of error in analyzing the data. Also
at the high school level, students should be expected to develop one (or more) hypothesis
(hypotheses) that predicts a probable outcome where the hypothesis is based on a well-
developed model or theory (NRC, 2012).
The following charts list several sample questions and prompts for each of the Seven
Segments of science inquiry. The sample questions also complement the eight practices
outlined in the Framework. Become accustomed to posing questions and prompts such
as these as you guide your students through inquiry investigations.
Seven Segments of Science Inquiry

With Exploratory Questions and Prompts
Seven Segments of Cognitive and Manipulative Teacher’s Low- and Teacher’s Mid- and
Science Inquiry Skills of Segment Mid-Level Questions High-Level Questions
1. Exploring a Observe a phenomenon What do you What can you infer
Phenomenon or discrepant event (or observe? from the observation?
engage in an open-ended
exploration) What additional What prior
observations can you knowledge do others
Assess your prior make? have about the
knowledge about the phenomenon?
phenomenon by asking, What prior
“What do I know about knowledge do you
what’s happening?” have about the
phenomenon?
(Continued)
(Continued)
Assess others’ prior
knowledge about the
phenomenon by asking,
“What do others know
about what’s happening?”
2. Focusing on a Make a list of several What is your Why did you select
Question questions to investigate question? this particular
from the observations question?
made What prior
knowledge do you Why is the question
Choose one (or the first) have about your important to you?
question to investigate question?
What information
Scrutinize the question by How did your will you need to
asking, “Is the question observations lead to investigate your
investigatable?” your question? question?
Modify the question, if What additional What are several

needed questions can you similar questions you
investigate from could investigate
Seek initial evidence observing the from the observed
through additional phenomenon? phenomenon?
observations of the
phenomenon Clarify what you
mean by the question.
Clarify the question by
asking, “Before designing Can you rephrase the
an investigation, do I question another
completely understand the way?
question?”
Is your question
Rewrite the question, if investigatable?
necessary
Write the question on a

sentence strip
3. Planning an Decide what data need to What data did you Predict or
Investigation be collected to answer the need to collect to hypothesize what you
question answer the question? think the answer to
the question will be.
Identify the variables and How will you design
constants needed to an investigation to How will you design
investigate the question answer the question? your investigation?
Design a controlled What supplies and What variables will

experiment or materials will you you consider in
investigation to answer the need to investigate the designing the
question question? investigation?
181
Identify the materials What are the steps in Propose a possible
needed to carry out the your investigation? answer to your
investigation question.
How many trials will
Draw an illustration of you conduct? What other answers
the setup for the are also possible?
investigation What is the
manipulating variable
Propose one or more in the investigation?
hypotheses to test a
tentative explanation or What is the responding
predict an outcome to variable?
the investigation
Do you need a control
Design a chart or table to for this investigation?
organize the data to be Why or why not?
collected during the
investigation
Identify safety rules to

follow during the
investigation
4. Conducting the Carry out the How will you organize Is your investigation
Investigation investigation your data on a table or well designed?
chart?
Collect appropriate data
What will your data
Record data in the table look like?
proper column of the
chart or table What variable will
become the vertical axis
Graph the results, if on the graph?
applicable
What variable will
Redesign and retry the become the horizontal
investigation, if axis on the graph?
necessary
What is an appropriate
title for your graph?
5. Analyzing Data Interpret and make What are the results of Were your original
and Evidence meaning from the data the data? assumptions about
the question correct?
Determine if the data is Are the data from the
biased or flawed in any trials consistent? How will you defend
way your findings?
Do you see a pattern
Seek patterns and coming from the data? What is the
relationships among the relationship between
variables
(Continued)
(Continued)
Seven Segments of Cognitive and Manipulative Teacher’s Low- and Teacher’s Mid- and High-
Science Inquiry Skills of Segment Mid-Level Questions Level Questions
Draw an initial conclusion What patterns are the independent and
based on the data emerging from the dependent variables?
data?
Analyze the data and What do the data say
evidence to support, Are the data biased? or imply?
modify, or refute the
previously stated Are the data reliable? What conclusions can
hypotheses or predictions you draw from the
How would you data?
Make a claim based on the interpret the data
evidence and evidence? How does the evidence
support or refute your
What claim can you claim?
make based on the
evidence? How is one variable
dependent upon
What can you another?
conclude from the
data? What explanation can
you propose from the
How do the data evidence collected?
support your
previous convictions How do the results
about the question? support what you
expected?
How will you
summarize your
findings?
6. Constructing Form an explanation (or Tell me what you If you were to redesign
New model) from the claim and learned from doing your investigation, what
Knowledge supporting evidence the investigation. would you change or do
differently?
Relate the explanation (or Were your original
model) to existing models assumptions about Were your original
the question correct? assumptions about the
Reflect upon and make question correct?
meaning as to your newly What claim can you
acquired knowledge make based on the How will you
evidence? summarize your
Connect new knowledge to findings?
your prior knowledge and Tell me what you
the knowledge of others learned from doing How will you defend
the investigation. your findings?
What is the main Create a model to

discovery for your explain your new
investigation? knowledge.
How does the new How do the results

knowledge apply to support what you
183
Seven Segments of Cognitive and Manipulative Teacher’s Low- and Teacher’s Mid- and High-
Science Inquiry Skills of Segment Mid-Level Questions Level Questions
other situations you already knew about
are learning about? the phenomenon?
How will your new Can you develop an

knowledge impact explanation from the
what you do or say? results?
Create a model to How would you

explain your new investigate another
knowledge. variable from the results?
What have you What other questions

learned from the do you have?
investigation?
7. Communicating Choose a means to How will you Was your investigation
New communicate your communicate your well designed?
Knowledge explanation (or model) results to others?
and findings to others If you were to redesign
(e.g., oral report, poster, What is the main idea your investigation,
PowerPoint, written you discovered from what would you
report) your investigation? change or do
differently?
Discuss your conclusions How does the new
with others knowledge apply to Were your original
other situations you assumptions about the
Use scientific-reasoning are learning about? question correct?
skills to link your claim
and supporting evidence How will you defend How will you
your findings? summarize your
Engage in scientific findings?
argumentation, allowing How will you connect
others to critique your your claims and How will you defend
investigation and evidence? your findings?
findings and provide
counterclaims to your What other questions Create a model to
findings would you like to explain your new
investigate? knowledge.
Make modifications to
your explanation or If another classmate
model, if needed was to do a similar
investigation, what
Consider other would you advise him
follow-up questions or or her about designing
other questions to the investigation?
investigate
How will your new
knowledge impact
what you do or say?
Was your investigation

well designed?
Although teachers often portray inquiry and argumentation as a means to resolve

questions, in reality, sometimes investigations result in discrepancies and disagreements
that lead to additional questions to investigate and alternative explanations to consider
(NRC, 2012), commencing the inquiry cycle to begin all over again. Maybe that’s why it’s
called “sigh-ence.”
Case Study: Designing a

Professional Development Plan
Note: This case study will focus on three themes: (1) improving classroom questioning
skills through effective professional development, (2) establishing a support system for
instructional change (including colleagues and coaches), and (3) understanding the
progression of the change process through the identification of presently used and desired
questioning strategies.
At the start of the 2011 school year, James Monroe High School (all school and teacher
names in this case were changed) implemented a new schoolwide professional develop-
ment model. The Monroe model focused on several key elements where teachers designed
their own individual improvement plans. In using the model, teachers had to make a
long-term commitment toward the improvement of one or more instructional behaviors
that resulted in increased student achievement. In addition, the plan had to be teacher
driven and show qualities of effective professional development. Centering on their
similar needs, Allison and Phillip, two chemistry teachers at Monroe High School, chose
to work collaboratively on their professional development plan. Since Allison and Phillip
knew that most of their 11th-grade chemistry students would elect to take an Advance
Placement science course as seniors as well as pursue a 2- or 4-year college after gradua-
tion, they decided that improving the questioning skills of their students, as well as their
own, would fit the model requirements.
Because both teachers already worked together in planning inquiry-based chemistry
labs for the past 3 years, they felt that improving their questioning strategies would
complement a culture of inquiry where students feel free and comfortable asking ques-
tions. In their plan, the two teachers stated that their goal was to create a community of
learners within a risk-free questioning environment where students maximized their
learning from the questions posed as well as the answers provided in class. In short, they
wanted to make classroom questions more meaningful and directed toward more effec-
tive learning.
Since there was no one within the school who could act as a role model, they decided
to find a mentor or coach outside the school district that could help in defining their pres-
ent practice, observe their chemistry lessons and give constructive feedback, assist in
implementing new strategies by co-teaching a class and modeling questioning strategies.
That decision led them to contact Dr. McKenzie, a science and mathematics education
professor at a local university, to act as their mentor. Dr. McKenzie taught graduate-level
science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education courses at the university
and one of particular interest to the two chemistry teachers, STEM 655: Improving and
Sustaining Effective Questioning Skills.
For their first meeting, Dr. McKenzie came to Monroe High School to talk with Allison
and Phillip about their professional development plan. During their initial conversation,
185
they discussed how change involves establishing clear, realistic goals, practicing new
strategies, allowing time for gradual improvement, having a support system, monitoring
progress, and reflecting on new emerging behaviors. Allison and Phillip concurred that
taking these steps was essential to their professional development plan. Dr. McKenzie
said that he was interested in acting as their coach and furthermore wanted to use the
experience as the foundation for a research article they could collaboratively write and
submit for publication. Dr. McKenzie suggested that Allison and Phillip buy a copy of the
book he uses in his questioning class, Quality Questioning: Research-Based Practice to Engage
Every Learner by Walsh and Sattes (2005). He suggested that the chapter readings would
guide and supplement their discussions throughout the project. Dr. McKenzie also sug-
gested a second book, Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and
Mathematics, 3rd edition, by Loucks-Horsley, Mundry, Love, and Hewson (2010). This
book provided an excellent framework for designing Allison and Phillip’s professional
development plan.
Their second meeting occurred a week later. During that time, Dr. McKenzie asked
Allison and Phillip to identify their strengths and weaknesses regarding their classroom
questioning skills. This information would help them plan ways to close the gap between
where they were presently and where they would like to be 1 year and then 2 years from
now. Phillip began by saying he was quite familiar with Bloom’s Taxonomy from his
undergraduate methods classes but usually asked lower-level questions. He said, “I
typically ask questions to keep the class moving and on-task. I also ask questions to see
which students did the reading assignment.” Allison responded next, “I normally use the
IRE method. When I ask a question and the student responds with an incorrect answer, I
give the student some credit in trying to answer but go on to ask another student.”
When Dr. McKenzie asked each of them why they chose to ask questions the way they
do, Allison explained, “We have a lot of content to cover and not enough classroom time
to teach the chemistry curriculum in any depth. If we have any spare time, it usually goes
to providing students with inquiry-lab investigations. They also take more time, but in
the end, students like the inquiry labs better, so they’re worth the extra time they take.”
Phillip added, “It’s probably out of habit, but recall-type questions are easier to ask. Plus,
they help students retain the chemistry facts and vocabulary terms they need to know for
the test.” As Allison and Phillip continued to comment on their strengths and weak-
nesses, Dr. McKenzie took notes that would be useful for reflection later in the project.
As the meeting progressed, Dr. McKenzie asked the two teachers to individually
make a bulleted list of the areas they wanted to improve upon. When done, Allison and
Phillip would read their lists aloud and look for similarities and differences between their
responses. Phillip listed that he wanted the following:
•• To ask questions that were less whole-class and rote-memorization oriented.

•• To have less passive learning and less one-way communication. Later he would
elaborate by adding, “I don’t want to do all the talking in the class. I want students
to answer other students’ questions.”
•• To ask clear and focused questions and have students give more supporting details
in their answers.
•• To ask questions equitably so all students are involved in the discussion and to
ensure questions are heard by all.
Allison then responded with her list. First, she began by stating that she wanted
students to do the following:
•• To ask questions when they are confused.

•• To speculate about other students’ ideas and responses.
•• To use questioning to guide them in assuming more responsibility for their own
learning.
She then shifted to stating what she wanted as a teacher:
•• To create a culture where students feel comfortable asking questions.

•• To ask better questions without sacrificing too much additional time.
Dr. McKenzie then asked them to think about their beliefs about quality questioning.
“You already stated that good questions facilitate productive learning,” he said, “and that
every student should have the opportunity to be called upon to answer.” Phillip
interjected, “Sometimes a student will give me an answer that I’m not looking for, but it’s
still a good answer from the student’s point of view. I need to accept that before making
any judgment about the answer.” “And that’s an excellent place to start,” Dr. McKenzie
replied.
“Now, make a mental picture of a classroom where questions are highly valued in the
learning process. Describe, to yourself, what the teacher is doing and saying in this class-
room. Then describe what the students are doing and saying in this same situation. What
present skills do you already have to implement this model? What new skills do you need
to develop to implement this model? That,” the professor said, “will be your homework
before we next meet.”
Over the next 2 months, Dr. McKenzie visited Allison and Phillip’s chemistry classes
to observe their questioning skills and suggest strategies to implement to improve those
skills. Several times he volunteered to co-teach classes to demonstrate how wait-time can
be used to enhance student answers. In those classes, he taught the teachers to ask a ques-
tion and then count quietly to themselves, “one-one thousand, two-one thousand, three-
one thousand,” and then call on a student to answer. Coach McKenzie, as he fondly
became, helped them to see that learning is a social interaction that requires establishing
classroom norms where questions are encouraged and asked without embarrassment or
intimidation.
As the school months moved along, Allison and Phillip grew to understand why
questioning is one of the most important prerequisites to becoming effective inquiry-
based science teachers. They soon were able to articulate how their use of questions fos-
tered scientific inquiry and argumentation in their chemistry classes.
By the spring, Allison and Phillip had truly built a culture of questioning in their
classrooms. Now, it was commonplace for them to plan questions in advance at various
domains of taxonomy, especially those that require a higher level of thinking and problem
solving. They recognized that students need time to formulate their own answers to their
own questions and to think aloud and complete their thoughts without interruptions. As
Phillip put it, “We all need time to think.”
Prior to their work with Dr. McKenzie, Allison and Phillip tended to call on students
who they thought would provide good, accurate answers to their questions. As Allison
admitted, “That generally meant the high-achieving students. But now I give every
student an opportunity to answer a question. Through coaching, I’ve learned to use ques-
tions to scaffold learning. I appreciate the work of Vygotsky and how questions serve as
scaffolding to higher levels of thinking. I often tell my students to think of a mason build-
ing a brick wall. He can lay bricks for the lower level but needs a ladder or scaffolding to
187
lay the higher levels of the wall. They realize my questions serve that purpose—to help
them think, provide details to support their thinking, and build confidence at higher
levels. They even learned a new word, metacognition, and its meaning.”
In the first year report of their professional development plan, Allison and Phillip
identified the attributes of a classroom’s culture of questioning. Through their work with
Dr. McKenzie and in establishing norms for questioning and responding to queries, the
two teachers identified ways they used questions in the classroom as a means to
•• encourage thinking, not punishment;

•• keep students on a cognitive hook by posing the question first, then the student’s
name;
•• use a follow-up questioning strategy for the second student to provide an alterna-
tive response or critique of the original answer;
•• avoid “shout out” answering
•• offer students respect when responding, and allow them to give an answer without
interruption from the teacher or from other students;
•• reject an “I don’t know” response, but rather provide clues and prompts to scaffold
students to an acceptable answer; and
•• provide positive feedback after a student’s response.
Allison and Phillip will continue their professional development plan for a second
year. With Dr. McKenzie as their coach, the teachers will explore ways to take their
questioning skills to the next level. In year two, they have identified exploring how to use
questions as a formative assessment strategy. By planning questions in advance, the
teachers will be able to assess how well their instruction is making sense to students and
modify their classroom instruction as needed.

1. Many educational researchers have identified the steps in a typical change process.
Although the steps may vary slightly from discipline to discipline, they often involve
these nine:
a. Assess present and desired states.

b. Set clear, focused goals.
c. Establish a support system.
d. Learn and implement new instructional strategies.
e. Allow time to practice—don’t expect change overnight.
f. Monitor progress.
g. Reflect on emerging practices.
h. Celebrate short-term successes.
i. Create a new classroom culture.
In the case study you just read, how were each of the nine steps above addressed in
Allison and Phillip’s professional development plan?
Briefly explain the importance of each step in the change process. Would you add any
additional steps? Or delete any of the steps listed?
What was the role of the coach in the change process?
With mixed ability classes, what questioning strategies do you think would be most
successful? Least successful? Present and justify your responses to a colleague.
2. In the 2007 best-selling novel, The Shack, by W. Paul Young, Sarayu exclaims,
“I am a verb. I am that I am. I will be who I will be. I am a verb!

I am alive, dynamic, ever active, and moving. I am a being verb.
And as my very essence is a verb, I am more attuned to verbs than nouns.
Verbs such as confessing, repenting, living, loving, responding, growing, reaping,
changing, sowing, running, dancing, singing, and on and on.
Humans, on the other hand, have a knack for taking a verb that is alive and full
of grace and turning it into a dead noun or principle that reeks of rules: something
growing and alive dies. Nouns exist because there is a created universe and
physical reality, but if the universe is only a mass of nouns, it is dead. Unless ‘I
am,’ there are no verbs, and verbs are what makes the universe alive.” (p. 204)
The word question can be in the form of a noun or a verb. Using the quote above,
distinguish between the two forms of the word question. Consider using one of the
following prompts to frame your argument and then share it with a colleague. Be
prepared to justify and defend your statement with supportive evidence.
Sarayu argues that she would rather be a verb than a noun, and I agree with her
because _______.
Sarayu maintains that she would rather be a verb than a noun; however, I disagree
with her because _______.
Sarayu insists that she would rather be a verb than a noun, but I have mixed opinions.
On one hand, I admire her position because _______, while on the other hand I dispute
her assertion because _______.
Although I agree with Sarayu to a point, I cannot fully accept her notion that _______.
3. For a different kind of discussion, view a classic video segment from Saturday Night
Live. In this humorous class parody, Jerry Seinfeld plays Mr. Thompson, a high school
history teacher. View the segment and analyze the teacher’s style of questioning. Using
Bloom’s Taxonomy, identify the level of questions the teacher most frequently asks
during the lesson. How does Mr. Thompson respond to correct answers? How does he
respond to incorrect answers? Does he pose chorus questions or call on specific students
by name? Although the segment is contrived, take note of any gender or racial bias in the
teacher’s questioning techniques. See http://cooperativelearning.nuvvo.com/
lesson/9592-seinfeld-teaches-history
4. Put your observations skills to good use. Select a science class to observe a teacher’s
questioning strategies. Make notes on whether you witness any gender bias in the
189
selection of students to answer. In other words, does the teacher call on or choose more
boys than girls to answer? Or more girls than boys? Does the teacher demonstrate any
racial bias? Are all students called upon equitably to answer? Note where the teacher is
standing in the class and which student gets called upon to answer. Does the teacher call
on a student in his or her immediate area? Identify the domain for each question the
teacher asks. At the end of the class, total the number of questions asked for each domain
of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Did the teacher ask questions across all domains or mainly at
knowledge/recall and comprehension levels?
5. As in Question 4, the Wait-Time Monitoring Chart below helps in recording the levels
of questions a teacher poses and his or her use of wait-time that follows the question.
Select a colleague’s science lesson to observe. As the lesson gets underway, write a
question posed by the teacher in the first column. Next, identify and circle the level or
domain of the question. Then record whether the teacher waits 3 second before calling on
a student. If possible, fill in the student’s name and his or her response. Next, record
whether the teacher uses wait-time 2 and pauses after the student’s response. Lastly, fill
in any follow-up question the teacher may ask and if he or she gives an acknowledgment
after the follow-up question.
Realizing this is a lot of information to record, you may want to observe just select
columns of the chart. Share your data with the teacher you observed and discuss their
implications.
Wait- Wait-
Time 1 Time 2
(At Least (At Least Teacher
Initial Level of 3 Student Student 3 Follow-Up Acknowledgment
Question Question Seconds?) Name Response Seconds?) Question or Response
K C Ap Yes or Yes or
An S E No No
An S E No No
An S E No No
An S E No No
An S E No No
An S E No No
Source: Adapted from Walsh & Sattes, 2005.

10
Assessing Scientific
Inquiry
The Anxiety Over Assessment

As science teachers, we understand the need to determine what our students are learning.
According to the National Research Council’s (2001b), Knowing What Students Know,
From teachers’ informal quizzes to nationally administrated standardized assess-

ments, assessments have long been an integral part of the educational process.
Educational assessments assist teachers, students, and parents in determining
how well students are learning. They help teachers understand how to adapt
instruction on the basis of evidence of student learning. (p. 19)
But just the sheer mention of a unit test or a final examination can strike fear in the
hearts of high school students. To most students, tests and exams are a necessary evil of
school. The threat of an examination can also cause even the best of students to freeze up,
a phenomenon known as “test anxiety.” Yet high-stakes standardized tests, end-of-unit
assessments, and midterm and final examinations have become a routine part of a
school’s instructional program. Some estimates report that schools devote as many as 20
days, or approximately one-tenth of the academic year, to district, statewide, and national
testing. Besides these formalized tests, teachers constantly make informal judgments and
formative assessments in their classrooms all day long to monitor student progress
toward achieving curricular standards. It is no wonder that assessment is a major concern
to teachers today.
“Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted
counts.” This maxim, reportedly posted in the office of Albert Einstein, summarizes the
recent controversy over high-stakes standardized testing versus proponents of alternative
assessment. Although inquiry may seem, at first, difficult to assess, there are useful means
to measure students’ competence in scientific inquiry. Whereas traditional paper-and-
pencil multiple-choice tests are best in assessing content knowledge, teachers can use
an array of alternative strategies, such as performance tasks, rubrics, monitoring charts,
190
ASSESSING SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY
191
capstone projects, transcending questions, concept maps, structured interviews, and self-
assessments to measure students’ competence in inquiry. Before examining such strate-
gies, let’s first focus on the importance of assessment and its alignment to standards and
instruction.
Assessment is the process of using on-demand written tests and/or alternative per-
formance tasks to collect evidence and data to make judgments regarding students’ work
and progress over time and to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of the teacher’s
instruction, leading to possible modification of the lesson or unit of study. In short, assess-
ment has a twofold goal: determining the level of competence of the student and the
effectiveness of the teacher’s instruction. Although the terms assessment and testing are
often used interchangeably, assessment refers to making judgments about performance
and instruction, whereas testing refers to the administration and mechanics of the exam-
ination instrument itself. Assessment is an integral aspect of teaching and learning sci-
ence. When a teacher makes formative and summative assessments about student work,
she makes critical judgments about its quality in terms of what the student should know
and be able to do and uses that information to design follow-up steps for instructional
improvement. Thus, assessment includes a multiple focus: determining the criteria for
learning and quality of student work, monitoring student progress, and adjusting and
improving instruction.
Curriculum Alignment
Curriculum alignment is a concept referring to the interrelationship among standards,
instruction, and assessment. The concept of curriculum alignment is often represented in
the form of a triangle.
The top point of the curriculum alignment triangle identifies the learning standards.
The standards may originate or be guided from the national, state, or district level and
may be defined as learning goals, frameworks, benchmarks, syllabi, or any document that
identifies what students should know and be able to do. The standards are the starting
point in designing any instructional or assessment program. The second point of the tri-
angle identifies the instructional program. The instructional program includes the scope
and sequence, units of study, learning strategies and activities, print and computer
resources, and other teaching materials. The third point of the triangle identifies the
assessment program. The assessment program includes both formative and summative
assessment. When the curriculum is aligned, the three aspects complement each other. In
other words, the instructional and the assessment programs are in congruence with the
implementation of the standards. If the goal of science literacy is to develop active,
engaged learners, then the instructional and the assessment components of the science
program should align to the standards by also being active and engaging to students.
In any instructional program, high school science teachers need to clearly and spe-
cifically communicate to their students the goals and standards for their courses. Teachers
then need to design appropriate assessment strategies that measure whether the goals
and standards have been attained. Finally, teachers need to create and implement an
instructional program that guides students through a sequence of learning opportunities
and leads to success in attaining the standards.
Problems with curriculum congruence arise when there is a mismatch or misalign-
ment between the instructional strategies used by the teacher and the assessment tech-
niques employed. For example, if high school chemistry students are learning through
student-initiated inquiry, methods in which they are solving problems based on observed
evidence and are later tested solely through multiple-choice items, the instruction and
assessment aspects of the program are out of alignment. If you want to know if students
learned a specific concept, a multiple-choice assessment can quickly determine that. If
you want to know if students can complete a process, then a performance assessment is
most appropriate.
Figure 10.1 Curriculum Alignment
Standards
Assessment Instructional Program
According to Audet and Jordan (2003),
the central questions addressed by the principle of congruence are 1) how does the
teacher take a learning goal and use it to design an assessment that provides valid
and sufficient evidence that this goal has been achieved by students and 2) how
does a teacher then use this assessment to guide his or her selection of learning
experiences that enable students to demonstrate that they have attained the learn-
ing goals? (p. 51)
To have standards, instruction, and assessment aligned and consistent, teachers can
ask themselves three questions:
1. What do my students need to know and be able to do? (standard)

2. How will I know whether the students meet the standard? (assessment)
3. What learning opportunities will I provide for students to meet the standard?
(instruction)
Formative and Summative Assessment Tools

An assessment is a tool teachers use to determine a student’s knowledge and skills and
to produce data that can be used to draw sound judgments about what he knows and is
193
able to do. Assessment tools have two major functions in teaching and learning: the first
is to monitor and adjust student learning during a lesson or unit of study (formative
assessment), and the second is to evaluate student level of competency and performance
at the end of a lesson or unit of study and to make decisions as to a grade, placement, or
promotion (summative assessment). Both serve equally important roles in the high school
science classroom.
With formative assessment, the teacher poses prompts and probes to determine what
a student is thinking about in regard to a subject being studied. These prompts and
probes help the teacher assess how learning is progressing and make modifications to the
instruction while the lesson is under way. Saying it another way, formative assessments
serve as information for teachers to adjust the instruction when signs indicate that stu-
dents are confused or puzzled about the content being presented. In regard to formative
assessment, research concludes that when teachers use formative assessment, students
receive ongoing feedback about their work along with suggestions on how to improve
their learning. During a science inquiry, the teacher may pose formative, exploratory-type
questions such as the ones listed in Chapter 9. Conversely, summative assessments con-
sist of quizzes and end-of-unit tests where letter grades are assigned. The upcoming sec-
tions of this chapter will categorize different domains or levels of thinking involved with
various summative-type test questions. To read more about formative and summative
assessments, see Classroom Assessment and the National Science Education Standards (NRC,
2001c), as well Resource A in the back of the book.
Designing Assessments
Unfortunately, most high school teachers have been taught to use the learning standards
to first design an instructional unit and then write the unit test. In this way, the sequence
of planning units of study starts with the standards, moves to the instructional strategies,
and finally arrives at the assessment procedures. Although this may sound logical,
McTighe and Wiggins (2005) offer a “backwards design” approach to curricula planning.
They suggest first sequencing the design of units of study with the standards, then mov-
ing to the assessment method, and last forming the instructional strategies. In the back-
wards design approach, McTighe and Wiggins suggest that teachers first be extremely
clear in identifying the unit’s goals and expectations (what the student is expected to
know and be able to do), and then decide how to determine the level of performance in
achieving the standards. By placing the assessment up front, before the instructional strat-
egies, the teacher avoids writing the test the night before it’s given. In a backwards design
approach, the planning of the unit progresses from standards, to assessment, to instruc-
tional strategies. As the teacher designs the assessment procedures, she asks herself, “At
the end of a lesson or unit of study, how do I know that learning has taken place? What
knowledge, skills, and scientific dispositions have students attained? How does the
assessment reflect what I truly believe students need to know and be able to do?”
In Chapter 5, you read how having a constructivist perspective is fundamentally a
mind-set in becoming an inquiry-based teacher. The constructivist or cognitive perspec-
tive highly regards how individuals construct knowledge and equally how to assess such
knowledge beyond the routine objective-type questions. This assertion is backed by the
National Research Council (2001b) stating as follows:
An important purpose of assessment is not only to determine what people know, but
also to assess how, when and whether they use what they know. This information is
difficult to capture in traditional tests, which typically focus on how many items
examinees answer correctly or incorrectly, with no information being provided
about how they derived those answers or how they understand the underlying
concepts. (p. 62)
Thus, for constructivist and inquiry-based teachers, it becomes essential to under-

stand how assessments work to our benefit to enhance student learning and performance,
not just evaluating it.
Choosing the Right Test Item

Given the vast amount of content students are expected to amass during today’s high
school science courses, it is not difficult to understand the role that traditional, on-demand
tests play in assessing student achievement. Test items of this type share the advantages of
ease in administration and scoring, reliability, and availability. Objective question formats,
such as multiple choice, true or false, matching, and fill-in-the-blank, frequently can be
found at the end of a chapter in biology, earth science, chemistry, and physics textbooks.
Objective test items do a reasonable job of assessing basic facts and the large numbers of
details students need to master in a short amount of time. Although objective-type items
serve the specific function of assessing content, they do not provide any more than a snap-
shot of understanding at a particular time, nor do they capture the progression of learning
over time (NRC, 2001b). Acquiring test items that are appropriate for assessing inquiry
and the nature of science can seem like a challenge. Fortunately, the American Association
for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has an assessment Web site with over 600 items
tested and researched for accuracy and reliability. The AAAS Project 2061 Science
Assessment Web site can be found at http://assessment.aaas.org. The site offers free
access to items appropriate to middle and high school science students for life, earth, and
physical science, and the nature of science. The items test for common misconceptions as
well as correct ideas. Click the section on the Nature of Science and see how the items on
controlling variables and using models can apply to your inquiry lessons.
Conventional wisdom suggests that inquiry assessment should mirror the work stu-
dents do in school. For that reason, assessing inquiry skills is best done over extended
periods of time rather than during a test in a single class period. If any classroom instru-
ment is used to make rightful judgments about a student’s ability to use the skills of sci-
entific inquiry, the assessment should assess the scope of understandings and abilities
that encompass the nature of inquiry (NRC, 2001c). Think of an assessment of inquiry
skills as practicing for a diving competition. The competition (or test) is completely
known to the diver (or student). The diver (or student) gets to practice a particular dive
(or task) and knows both what he or she is expected to do during the competition (or test)
and the criteria for a high score (or grade). With a standards-driven, inquiry-based assess-
ment, the teacher’s goal is to balance objective testing with authentic performance tasks
that mirror or apply the work completed during the investigation. An appropriate
inquiry-based assessment will test not only content knowledge but also science process
skills, scientific reasoning skills, and metacognitive skills. The assessment would also
include the standard to be achieved, the criteria for accomplishment, and examples of
exemplary, high-quality student work. In scientific inquiry, teachers develop a new para-
digm for assessing students’ work. It includes not only the answers they give but also the
questions they raise.
195
Given the subjectivity of inquiry-based assessment, without specific measurements

much of the assessment depends on the judgment of the classroom teacher. After all, it is
the classroom teacher who knows his students’ work the best. The National Research
Council (2001c) suggests that “inquiry is difficult to assess in a one-time test. A teacher’s
position in the classroom allows for personal judgments of one’s abilities over extended
investigation that cannot be matched by any feasible external testing procedure” (p. 17).
For that reason, teachers need to constantly use multiple assessment measures to monitor
and record students’ interactions.
What is important is that assessment is an ongoing activity, one that relies on

multiple strategies and sources for collecting information that bears on the qual-
ity of student work and that can be used to help both the students and the
teacher think more pointedly about how the quality might be improved. (NRC,
2001c, p. 30)
Using Multiple Assessments

Many of us have heard the phrase “teaching to the test.” The phrase refers to the notion
that assessment drives instruction. Well, if it’s a good test, there is nothing wrong in teach-
ing to the test. Because inquiry-based teachers consider assessment alternatives that align
to the philosophy of inquiry, their decisions often lead to multiple, standards-driven
assessments rather than reliance on one single test. It is, however, a bit more challenging
to assess learning through inquiry. What verifiable evidence exists that learning has
occurred? By correctly answering a multiple-choice question, does a student truly indi-
cate that he or she has mastered the information? In learner-centered classrooms, effective
science teachers choose various forms of assessment to make day-to-day as well as
month-to-month judgments about students’ ongoing performances. By using a wide
range of assessments, including multiple-choice items, constructed response questions,
performance tasks, rubrics, transcending questions, monitoring charts, concept maps,
structured interviews, self-assessments, and capstone projects, inquiry-based high school
teachers can gain a better understanding of whether or not the student truly has con-
structed an understanding of the content.
Authentic Assessments
The term authentic (or alternative) assessment is often used in describing measurements to
assess inquiry. Authentic assessments are embedded tasks that are similar in form to tasks
in which students will engage outside the classroom or are similar to the activities of sci-
entists (NRC, 2001c). They are designed to measure what students know as well as what
they can do. Authentic assessments have an advantage over traditional objective assess-
ments. Besides assessing content and high-order thinking skills, they also provide oppor-
tunities for students to demonstrate creativity, problem solving, and decision making.
Although it takes time to develop accurate, dependable, valid assessments that measure
inquiry, having assessments that align to the standards and instruction is a step further in
curriculum alignment. This section will provide several types of assessments high school
science teachers can use in an inquiry-based classroom.
Performance Tasks
In a performance task, students engage in collecting information to solve a given
problem and often construct a model based on the evidence collected. Performance-based
assessment can take the form of open-ended investigations, station-to-station laboratory
tasks, or structured tasks.
For an example of a performance task, David Stevens, a high school earth science
teacher in Maryland, encourages problem solving in his classroom. This task assesses
geologic understandings, manipulation, and science-process skills, as well as the ability
to construct a model. According to Stevens (1991),
Students start the exam by spending two to three days measuring, identifying,
and recording data taken from meter-long plastic tubes that have been placed at
specific locations around the classroom. Each tube represents a hypothetical core
sample of material taken from that location. The tubes contain various rock and
fossil specimens that will be used to draw conclusions about climate, geologic age,
geologic events, and geologic history. Students may collect their data individually,
in pairs, or in small groups. The data collected and the method by which the stu-
dent represents the data comprise one-third of the final exam grade. (p. 359)
In the second part of the final exam, each student takes his or her data home and
constructs a model of the area represented in the classroom. (Previous examples of mod-
els are withheld from the students.) Finished models usually take the form of geologic
maps, topographic maps, cross sections, or three-dimensional replicas. The model consti-
tutes another third of the final grade.
Lastly, each student is required to write a geologic history of the area. The theoretical
geologic history must be plausible, and the history should identify as many of the area’s
unique geological features as possible. There is no required length for the theory, which
constitutes the remaining third of the final exam grade (Stevens, 1991, pp. 359, 361). In
this case, the assessment provides an opportunity for students to demonstrate mastery of
their understanding of earth science in a variety of ways. The task allows students to
(a) use knowledge to solve problems, (b) use performance and science-process skills to
complete the task, (c) collect data and evidence based upon their observations, and
(d) construct an explanation, in the form of a written report, based on the evidence col-
lected. In addition, the task reinforces the development of scientific dispositions and
attitudes that empower students to make decisions on their own.
For other excellent examples of high school performance tasks for biology, earth sci-
ence, chemistry, and physics, see Resource A (Print Resources on Assessment), Science
Educator’s Guide to Laboratory Assessment (2002) by Doran, Chan, Tamir, and Lenhardt.
Rubrics
Rubrics or scoring guides, when used in conjunction with project-based assessments
and performance tasks, provide a means for all students to achieve high standards by
communicating what exemplary, high-standard work looks like. Rubrics articulate
explicit performance descriptions and criteria for specific areas at different levels of com-
petence. They distinguish proficiency from above-standard (or exemplary) and from
below-standard (or unacceptable) work. Rubrics, when used throughout the inquiry
investigation, foster conversations about what constitutes quality work. When a student
197
asks the question, “What are we supposed to do?” the teacher can refer to the rubric. The
rubric also answers the student question, “What do I have to do to get an A?” For stu-
dents, rubrics take the “game” out of guessing what the teacher is looking for and provide
a means of self-reflection when evaluating their own work. For teachers, rubrics commu-
nicate the classroom standard for excellent work. Many teachers who use rubrics in the
classroom have confidence that they help students both make better judgments about
their own work and strive for the highest possible standard.
The holistic rubric shown in Figure 10.2 is applicable for scoring the planning and
performance of a laboratory procedure such as the “Sugar and Sand Task” in Chapter 7.
Figure 10.2 Holistic Rubric for Scoring the Planning and Performance of a Laboratory
Procedure
The Sugar and Sand Task

Levels of Performance
Level 3: Exemplary (above standard)
•• Needs no prompting or assistance to begin or complete the task

•• Demonstrates complete understanding of the nature, conditions, and limits of the question or problem
•• Designs and describes in depth the logical order of the procedures
•• Carries out the plan with accurate quantitative measurements
•• Manipulates equipment and materials safely
•• Uses appropriate techniques in collecting data
•• Records data and measurements accurately and concisely
•• Communicates findings and results effectively
•• Demonstrates precise and accurate solutions to the question or problem
•• Performance results in a precise and accurate solution to the question or problem
Level 2: Competent (at standard)
•• Works cooperatively with partner to complete task

•• Considers the nature, conditions, and limits of the question or problem
•• Designs acceptable and appropriate procedures
•• Carries out quantitative measurements
•• Uses apparatus safely and with good technique
•• Records measurement correctly
•• Communicates findings in a satisfactory manner
•• Performance results in a solution to the problem
Level 1: Limited or inadequate (below standard)
•• Requires assistance or prompting to begin the task

•• Fails to consider one or more conditions and limits of the question or problem
•• Plans inappropriate procedure to solve the question or problem
•• Uses unsafe laboratory techniques or procedures
•• Makes errors in recording data
•• Commits errors in calculations
•• Records result incompletely
•• Performance does not solve the question or problem
Transcending Questions
Transcending questions allow the teacher to conduct assessments in situations where
students use data and evidence from their original inquiry investigation to solve a prob-
lem in a related situation. This can be accomplished by referring to an investigation the
students just completed and testing their understanding by providing a new, similar situ-
ation. The teacher can have students design another investigation using a different
manipulated or independent variable, thus transcending what they learned in one situa-
tion and applying it to a different situation. As an example, in a 9th-grade physical science
class, Ms. Clark uses Nasco’s Rubber Band Cannons to answer the question, “How does
the angle of the cannon affect the distance the rubber band will travel?”
Figure 10.3
During the inquiry phase of the lesson, students have to
•• identify the manipulated variable (the angle), the responding variable (the distance
the rubber band travels), and the controlled variables (the size of the rubber band,
the amount of force applied to the rubber band, the classroom environment, how
the rubber band is released, etc.);
•• write a hypothesis for the investigation;
•• design an appropriate investigation to test the question;
•• carry out the investigation and record the data on a chart or a table;
•• create a graph, using a computer, to represent the data;
•• draw a conclusion that describes the relationship between the manipulated vari-
able and the responding variable;
•• determine whether the hypothesis (or which one of the hypotheses) is correct; and
•• make a claim from the evidence collected and communicate the reasoning as to
how the claim and evidence are related.
During the assessment phase of the lesson, Ms. Clark gave the students a two-part
test. The first part included 10 multiple-choice questions that measured their understand-
ing of motion concepts, including trajectory and potential and kinetic energy. The second
199
part of the test included an application question where some students had to design an
experiment to determine how the force or “pull back” affects the distance the rubber band
travels, while other students had to determine how the size of the rubber band affects the
distance traveled. By using multiple assessment measures, Ms. Clark can determine not
only what students know about forces, energy, and trajectories but also their abilities to
use information gathered from an investigation and apply it to similar situations.
Monitoring Charts
Observing day-to-day performance is an informal and practical means of assessment
in an inquiry-based science classroom. Through the use of monitoring charts, teachers can
observe and monitor a predetermined set of student behaviors, including the following:
•• Brainstorms possible solutions to questions and problems

•• Makes careful observations
•• Follows directions
•• Interacts positively with peers
•• Uses equipment properly
•• Acts responsibly
•• Uses the Internet and computer software to collect, organize, and present data
•• Makes positive constructive contributions during group work
•• Collects data and evidence in a journal or research notebook
A teacher can move about the room, observe students’ behavior, and carefully note indi-
vidual actions on a chart. Specific behaviors can be marked with a “check plus” (a+) for
above-standard performance, a “check” (a) for at-standard performance, or a “check minus”
(a-) for below-standard performance. High school teachers are also encouraged to make
anecdotal records of daily observations and notations in a running record by using a notebook
or chart on a clipboard to record students’ comments, questions, ideas, misconceptions, prob-
lems, and achievements. When using monitoring charts, remember to document the student’s
name, date, time, and title of lesson. Teachers should observe and monitor all students equi-
tably and make observations regularly to ensure reliability in the data collected. Figure 10.4 is
an example of a monitoring chart. The monitoring chart can be easily modified to list the
Seven Segments of Scientific Inquiry and its correlating tasks presented earlier in Chapter 1.
Figure 10.4 Science Inquiry Monitoring Chart
Stage/Behavior Investigation #
1 2 3 4 5
Exploring
makes observations
records observations in journal
takes careful notes
(Continued)
(Continued)
1 2 3 4 5
Exploring
draws illustrations/sketches
records “what if . . .” questions

Stating a Question
sorts and revises questions
states an investigation question
brainstorms possible solutions
Identifying a Statement to Test
makes a statement to test
records statement
Designing a Procedure
brainstorms possible steps
arranges steps in sequential order
identifies manipulated variable
identifies responding variable
identifies dependent variables
determines materials to use
Carrying Out a Plan
obtains supplies and materials
follows written procedure
follows safety guidelines
shares/respects ideas with group members
assumes responsibility for group role
makes constructive contributions to group
Collecting Evidence
gathers data
makes accurate measurements
organizes data in tables or charts
plots data on a graph
201
1 2 3 4 5
Exploring
describes relationship between variables
draws conclusion
analyzes results
determines validity of hypothesis
Communicating Results
prepares trifold poster
makes contribution to presentation
uses appropriate terminology
makes eye contact with audience
speaks clearly
answers questions from audience
reflects on investigation
Structured Interviews
Although some students can demonstrate their competence in writing, others can best
explain concepts by expressing themselves verbally. Structured interviews can be a viable
means of assessing students’ understanding (Southerland, Smith, & Cummins, 2002) and
are especially effective for students with test anxiety.
During a structured interview, the teacher provides several probing questions or
visual prompts to elicit the student’s understanding of a concept. The questions can cen-
ter on the student solving a problem, making a prediction, or drawing a conclusion about
a particular situation or phenomenon. The teacher may also choose to provide two or
three questions in advance so that the student can prepare responses for the upcoming
interview. In this case, the student researches the answers to the questions but will not
know which specific questions will be asked during the interview. The advantage of this
one-on-one interaction is that the student can then blend his or her jargon with scientific
terms to express an understanding. This process also provides flexibility for the teacher,
who can assess a student’s understanding of the inquiry process by individualizing and
tailoring the questions posed based on the student’s responses. Because structured inter-
views are very time intensive, a teacher can use the interview process on a sample of
students in the class to gauge the entire class’s understanding and modify instruction
accordingly.
While planning for a structured interview, consider the following steps:
1. Select questions based on goals and objectives of the lesson/unit. Include actual
objects, diagrams, pictures, materials, or equipment whenever possible to assist in
posing questions.
2. Design questions that provide students an opportunity to explain and elaborate

their understandings. Avoid questions with “yes” or “no,” or “one-word” answers.
3. Start the interview with an easy question to make the students feel comfortable.
The success of the structured interview lies in the comfort level of the students and
their ability to provide supportive details to their responses.
4. Employ wait-time strategies for the student to respond. Do not interrupt the stu-
dent in the middle of his or her answer.
5. Make recordings of the student’s responses by taking notes or using an audiotape
recorder or a videotape machine.
An interview can be either formal (structured) or informal (unstructured). In one

example of a structured interview, both the teacher and student are sitting face-to-face
discussing one-on-one what the student knows about a particular concept just studied.
Through personalized communication, the student negotiates the meaning of the con-
cepts and shares his understanding with the teacher. In the other example, an interview
with a student can be more informal and day-to-day. In this case, the teacher circulates
around the room, sits down with an individual student or group of students, and dis-
cusses the investigation, the procedure, and the evidence being recorded. The teacher
carefully listens to students’ interactions, values their comments, and poses diagnostic
questions to determine how well the individual or group is mastering the concepts being
studied. During the informal interview process,
The teacher makes judgments about the student’s level of understanding by

assessing the student during the course of the project and carefully observing the
student’s work, asking key questions along the way, and responding to the stu-
dent’s questions. The teacher continually probes the student to ensure how well
the student understands the concept, to determine how he approaches the prob-
lem, and to find out the assumptions that underlie a student’s response. During
the process, the teacher has a unique opportunity to make considered judgments,
based on the concrete evidence collected about the quality of student accomplish-
ment. (NRC, 2001c, p. 8)
Self-Assessments
Self-assessments are vehicles in which students assess their performance and monitor
their metacognition skills through reflection on their own strengths and weaknesses. Self-
assessments are especially useful in inquiry-based instruction because the student
provides individual feedback on his or her performance and moves toward greater intel-
lectual independence (Van Scotter & Pinkerton, 2008). Although students tend to rate
themselves favorably, the self-assessment can be an effective evaluation instrument when
it challenges students to reflect on the task and identify how they might improve their
performance if they were to repeat the inquiry or engage in a similar task.
Self-assessments usually contain a set of statements and a rating scale. The statements
can describe proficient levels of behavior, while the rating scale can vary from 5 (the highest)
to 1 (the lowest), or include descriptors such as Always, Usually, Sometimes, Rarely, and Never.
Figure 10.5 is a self-assessment about the assessment system in your classroom. Complete
the self-evaluation by circling the appropriate number/response for each statement.
203
Figure 10.5
Circle the appropriate number/response for each of the following statements about your classroom
assessment system:
Always Usually Sometimes Rarely Never
5 4 3 2 1
My assessment system . . .
1. Includes various measures, both 5 4 3 2 1

traditional and authentic, to
assess students’ understandings.
2. Includes assessing students’ 5 4 3 2 1
understandings prior to the
beginning of a new topic or unit.
3. Provides students with essential 5 4 3 2 1
information that progress is
being made toward reaching
learning goals, standards, and
course expectations.
4. Assists in planning, teaching, 5 4 3 2 1
and making adjustments to the
instructional program as well as
students’ understandings.
5. Assesses group as well as 5 4 3 2 1
individual work.
6. Assesses what students know, 5 4 3 2 1
what they can do, and their
scientific attitudes, attributes, or
habits of mind.
7. Includes day-to-day as well as 5 4 3 2 1

end of the unit assessments.
8. Provides students the 5 4 3 2 1
opportunity to demonstrate their
understandings, competencies,
and accomplishments in a variety
of ways.
9. Addresses core content and 5 4 3 2 1
science-process skills.
10. Is aligned to learning standards 5 4 3 2 1
and instructional strategies.
(Continued)
(Continued)
Circle the appropriate number/response for each of the following statements about your classroom
assessment system:
Always Usually Sometimes Rarely Never
5 4 3 2 1
My assessment system . . .
11. Is based on clear, communicated 5 4 3 2 1

criteria (e.g., rubrics).
12. Applies to relevant and real-life 5 4 3 2 1
situations that are extensions of
in-class performances.
13. Allows for at-home as well as 5 4 3 2 1
in-class assessments.
14. Allows students to engage in 5 4 3 2 1
ongoing assessments of their
work and that of others.
15. Allows for the assessment to be 5 4 3 2 1
written at the beginning of the
unit rather than the night before
it is administered.
16. Is free of bias and ensures that 5 4 3 2 1
all students are assessed fairly
and equitably.
17. Incorporates higher-order 5 4 3 2 1
thinking skills such as
appraising, critiquing,
hypothesizing, and analyzing as
well as recalling, describing, and
explaining.
18. Addresses the nature of science, 5 4 3 2 1
social perspectives, and history
of science.
19. Includes students manipulating 5 4 3 2 1
equipment and using laboratory
techniques learned in the
classroom.
20. Includes review of written 5 4 3 2 1
responses from other science
teachers to ensure interrater
reliability.
205
In a way, rubrics can be considered a form of self-assessment. Using rubrics in the

high school science classroom provides a unique opportunity for students to self-assess
their work and strive to achieve at the highest standard. Through using a rubric to guide
performance, students know what constitutes exemplary work. Rubrics allow students to
reflect on their work and attain the highest possible level.
Capstone Projects
Capstone projects are final inquiries, investigations, research projects, or presenta-
tions usually completed toward the end of the school year. When students complete a
capstone project, they model the inquiry process by
•• identifying a worthwhile and researchable question,

•• planning the investigation,
•• executing the research plan, and
•• drafting the research report. (NRC, 1996)
Capstone projects offer teachers a unique opportunity to judge how well students can
integrate the knowledge from a science course and apply it in a research setting. When
coupled with an oral presentation, capstone projects enhance speaking and listening
skills, including making eye contact, projecting voice, and speaking clearly.
Some high schools have separate courses or electives for juniors and seniors, such as
Research in Science, that are completely inquiry based. In these courses, students choose
a research question to investigate. The teacher or a community scientist acts as a mentor
in guiding students in writing a proposal that carefully frames the question. Working as
individuals or in small groups, students develop a set of procedures to carry out the
inquiry, a list of materials and equipment needed, and a means for collecting and organiz-
ing the data. When the plan is completed, it is approved either by the classroom teacher
or by a committee of other science teachers and/or peer reviewed by other students in the
class.
During the actual inquiry, students may need the assistance of a local college profes-
sor or might benefit from using a college’s laboratory facilities or library. For this reason,
coordinating research with a nearby college or university may be helpful. The contact
may also lead to the higher education institution offering college credit upon successful
completion of the investigation.
Transitioning to New Assessments

The most important point of this chapter is to clearly demonstrate that inquiry-based
teaching is predicated on a different form of assessment. It is not always practical to use
objective-type, multiple-choice items to assess scientific inquiry. Given the challenges of
class size, with some teachers having as many as five classes with 25 to 30 students in
each, the question often asked is “How do I make the transition to new assessments while
I’m still trying to understand how to teach through inquiry?” It is true that authentic
assessments demand more time to construct and correct. Some may question their
subjectivity. Others may question their reliability. Because teachers are not assessment
specialists, they need to work in collaboration to develop inquiry-based units and the
appropriate assessments. It may take time for teachers to develop appropriate assessment
tools, but when you use them, you will have true alignment among the standards, the
instruction, and the assessment.
Case Study: Measuring and

Assessing Centripetal Force
In this case study, George Wolfe leads his physics students through an inquiry-based lab
on calculating centripetal force. The class in this case study contains 18 inner-city students
all taking introductory physics as 9th graders.
The centripetal force investigation aligns with the Framework (2012):
Practices
•• Using mathematical thinking
•• Engaging in argument from evidence
•• Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information
•• Cause and Effect: Mechanism and explanation: Events have causes, sometimes
simple, sometimes multifaceted. A major activity of science is investigating and
explaining causal relationships and the mechanisms by which they are mediated.
Core Ideas: Physical Sciences
•• PS2.A: Forces and Motion—an understanding of the forces between objects is

important for describing how their motions change, as well as predicting stability
or instability in systems at any scale.
The Prelab
“Think about this,” Mr. Wolfe says to the class. “Where do you sit on a schoolyard
merry-go-round if you want to move fastest? Do you sit near the center, in the middle, or
out at the edge?” As students raise their hands, Mr. Wolfe waits a few seconds and then
calls on Alberto to respond.
“Oh, that’s easy,” Alberto shouts out. “Out by the edge.”
“That’s right!” Mr. Wolfe responds. “Now, what if you went to an amusement park
and went on the Tilt-a-Whirl?” he continues. “Why don’t you fall off even when the ride
tips vertically?” As the students look puzzled, Mr. Wolfe explains, “The answer is
PHYSICS! In this lab, we want to take what we learned last week about Newton’s three
laws of motion and see if Isaac’s ideas about linear motion apply to circular motion.” At
that point, Mr. Wolfe reaches behind the demonstration table and brings out a 2-gallon
207
plastic pail with a long rope attached to the handle. He fills the pail one quarter of the
way with water and begins to swing it over his head. “As I swing the pail in a circular
motion, what would happen if I let go of the rope? Would it continue to travel in a circle,
or would it fly directly outward?” Karen thinks it would continue to travel in a circular
path, and Jennifer says it would to fly straight out.
“Try it and see what happens,” Jason suggests.
“Well, actually,” the teacher responds, “if I let go of the rope, the pail will move in the
direction along the tangent to the circular path. I’ll draw a picture on the board to show
what it would look like.”
Mr. Wolfe continues, “When I whirl the pail of water around in a circle, I must keep
pulling or exerting a force on the rope. Is a force being exerted? If so, in what direction?”
“Inward,” Yolanda says.
“That’s right! This inward pull or force,” Mr. Wolfe continues, “keeps the pail revolv-
ing over my head and in a circular path. The string is applying a force toward the center.
This force is called centripetal force. Centripetal force means ‘toward the center’ or ‘center
seeking.’ As I whirl the pail overhead, there is an inward pull from the rope. Now, I don’t
know if Newton ever tried this demonstration back in Lincolnshire, England, but he
apparently wondered, like all good scientists do, if the sun exerts a force on the planets.
Newton knew that when you exert a force on an object, it accelerates. So he tried to apply
this idea to the planets. Newton realized that for a body orbiting in a circular path, the
force is directed inward toward the center of the orbit. Because acceleration is a change in
velocity (positive or negative), the exerting force is causing a change in the direction of
the orbiting object. That is what’s called acceleration.
“I now want to demonstrate this in another way. To do this, I’ll need a one-hole rubber
stopper, a piece of glass tubing about 15 centimeters long with the ends rounded off, and a
length of strong string. I’m first going to take a string and thread it through the glass tubing.
Next, I’m going to tie a rubber stopper to one end of the string. As I hold on to the glass
tubing in one hand and the string in the other, I’ll twirl the rubber stopper above my head.
“Now think about this, is there a force being exerted?” Mr. Wolfe pauses for a while and
then answers, “Indeed there is. As the stopper rotates in an orbit, my hand holding the
string represents an approximate measurement of centripetal force. I can feel the centripetal
force from the circular motion of the rubber stopper, but there is no way to quantitatively
measure the amount of force. Can you think of any way we can measure the force?”
Judy responds, “Could you use a spring scale?”
“Well, what do you think?” he pauses again. “I sure can,” Mr. Wolfe responds, “and I
just happen to have one here!” He now attaches a spring scale to the string and has Judy
come up and read the scale in Newtons as the rubber stopper whirls in a circle. The scale
reads 1.5 Newtons.
Mr. Wolfe now poses a question to the class: “Knowing there is a force being exerted
by the stopper, what is the relationship between a center-seeking force and the physical
aspects of an orbiting stopper? Your task,” he continues, “is to design an investigation to
show the relationship between the centripetal force and the properties of the orbiting
object. The challenge of this lab is to think like a scientist and design an experiment to fill
in this statement.” He then turns to the board and writes—the amount of centripetal force
needed to keep a body in orbit depends on the ______________. “By the end of the lab,
you should fill in the blank and be able to prove and defend it with the supporting evi-
dence collected during your investigation.”
Mr. Wolfe knows he wants students to investigate three variables: the mass,
the radius of the circle, and the velocity or speed of the stopper. To get the students
thinking, he prompts the class by posing the following questions: What are some of the
factors that influence how much force the string exerts on the stopper? Does the mass
of the orbiting object affect the amount of centripetal force? In other words, if I have a
bigger mass, would it take more force to keep the object in orbit? Does the distance the
orbiting object is from the center affect the force? In other words, how does the radius
affect the centripetal force? Does the velocity or speed of the orbiting object affect the
force? Or, to say it another way, do I have to hold this harder if the object circulates at
a faster rate?
After a momentary discussion, students conclude that three variables could affect
centripetal force: mass, radius of the orbit, and velocity or speed. It is important to begin
this portion of the lesson with a review of how to design an experiment. Mr. Wolfe now
prompts the students toward choosing a question around one of the three variables and
designing an investigation to answer their question. He asks, “What do you want to mea-
sure? What are the variables in the investigation?” Regardless of the variable the students
choose, he knows that their data or answers imply a relationship. That means each group
should be prepared to produce a graph of the evidence it collects. From past experience,
Mr. Wolfe knows he will have to provide a review on plotting data and determining the
various relationships that students may get from their data.
Brainstorming and Planning the Investigation

At this point, there are six groups of students investigating the three questions. As it
turns out, two groups choose to investigate the mass variable, two others choose the
radius, and the last two choose the speed or velocity variable. As students design their
investigations, they need sufficient time to exchange ideas about their preexisting
assumptions about the investigation. Each group must decide which variable will affect
the outcome of the experiment and which variables will be held constant. Mr. Wolfe
prompts their thinking by asking, “Out of the three variables, how many need to be con-
trolled? How can they be controlled? Think about what you are looking for and how you
will analyze the data. What is the relationship between the centripetal force and the vari-
able you chose to investigate? Remember, your graph should show the relationship
between the manipulated and the responding variables. You also need to determine
which variable goes on the x-axis and the y-axis.”
Mr. Wolfe uses this time to circulate among all six groups to review their designs and
procedures. He has each group first identify the manipulated (or dependent) variable and
the responding (or independent) variable, and then identify the controlled variables. As
he rotates to each group, Mr. Wolfe checks the appropriate task on an inquiry monitoring
chart he has set up for this lesson and approves each group’s draft of its investigation. He
also tells students that as soon as their procedure is approved, they should determine the
equipment they will need to carry out the experiment.
During its brainstorming session, one of the two mass groups finds the investigation
relatively easy to design. The students in the group indicate to Mr. Wolfe that they want
to find out how the mass affects the centripetal force. One student reminds the rest of the
group that F = ma but questions whether the formula holds true for circular motion as
well as linear motion. The mass group then writes a hypothesis to test—as the mass
increases, the amount of force will also increase.
“What’s the manipulated variable in your experiment?” Mr. Wolfe asks.
“The mass,” a student answers. “We’ll change the mass by adding stoppers to the end
of the string. We’ll put one stopper on and measure the force for three trials. Then we’ll
add a second stopper and measure the force again for another three trials. Then we’ll add
209
a third stopper and measure the centripetal force again.” The mass group explains that
they will keep the radius and the speed constant throughout the investigation.
“But now how will you control the velocity?” Mr. Wolfe asks.
“Oh, that’s easy,” Michael explains. “We’ll count how many times the stopper spins
around in a certain amount of time, then duplicate that in each trial.”
Another student adds, “I’ll count how many spins the stopper makes in 10 seconds.
Or we can make 10 spins and see how long 10 spins takes. Let’s say we get 10 spins in 10
seconds; once we get that, we want to be sure we spin that with two masses. The speed
won’t be perfect, but it’s close enough.”
As expected, the radius experiment proves to be a bit more of a challenge. Subsequently,
the brainstorming discussions for these groups are significantly different from what occurs
in the other groups. One group’s question is “Does the radius of the orbit affect the centrip-
etal force?” This group knows the radius of the orbit will be the manipulated variable, while
the mass and velocity of the orbiting stopper will remain the same.
“How are you going to change the radius?” Mr. Wolfe asks.
“We’ll make the first radius equal to a half meter, the second radius 1 meter, and then the
third radius 2 meters,” Amy responds. “We’ll also have the same person spin all three radii.”
Mr. Wolfe then asks, “Will you change the number of stoppers?”
“No,” Alaina says. “We’ll keep the same number of stoppers for all trials.”
“Good! Now, how will you measure centripetal force as the responding variable?”
Mr. Wolfe asks.
“We’ll attach a spring scale to the string and read the approximate amount of centrip-
etal force in Newtons,” Amy answers.
“That’s great!” Mr. Wolfe replies. “Now for the tough part: How will you keep the
velocity the same in each trial?”
Amy knows that determining the effect of the radius will be tricky because they have
to find a way to control the velocity of the orbiting stopper as the radius becomes larger.
The students in the radius group know the formula for velocity, V = D/T. They conclude
that as the radius increases, so will the circumference or distance of the orbit. As they
control for velocity, they must also control the time the stopper takes to make a full orbit.
In other words, to control velocity, they must take into consideration the distance and
time. As the distance or circumference increases, the time must also increase.
What seems like a simple experiment at first is now more difficult. The group now has to
determine how to manipulate the radius while controlling mass and speed. After some dis-
cussion with Mr. Wolfe, the group remains puzzled on how to control the velocity. They know
that radius 1 will result in velocity 1, and that radii 2 and 3 should also equal velocity 1. The
dilemma they face, however, is how to increase the radius and keep the velocity the same.
After considerable discussion, the group decides that a 1-meter circumference orbiting in 1
second will have the velocity of 1 meter per second. A circumference of 2 meters would have
to take 2 seconds to equal the same velocity of 1 meter per second, and a circumference of 3
meters would have to take 3 seconds to equal the velocity of 1 meter per second. To maintain
the velocity of 1 meter per second, the group decides to calculate the radii needed to make the
three circumferences equal to 1, 2, and 3 meters (.15 m, .32 m, and .48 m, respectively).
The group also determines that each of the three radii will require three trials to find
the mean. The three students in the radius group now face an interesting situation. Each
student has a different hypothesis for the same question. Amy thinks that when the
radius increases and the velocity remains the same, the centripetal force will increase,
while Holly thinks it will decrease. Cathy, however, knows that the speed will affect the
centripetal force, and because the speed in the experiment remains the same, the centripetal
force should also remain the same. Rather than discourage their thinking, Mr. Wolfe tells
them to record each of their hypotheses and see which one is correct after the data are
collected and graphed.
As Mr. Wolfe gets around to the velocity group, he finds its plan is well under way.
“What’s your question?” he asks.
“What effect does the speed of an orbiting body have on the centripetal force?” answers
Alberto. The speed group also has a hypothesis. The members believe, using Newton’s
formula of F = ma, that if they increase the speed, the centripetal force will also increase.
Mr. Wolfe then says, “But remember, Newton derived the formula for linear motion.
What are you determining?”
One student responds, “Circular motion. So we want to see if Newton’s law of linear
motion holds true for circular motion.”
“That’s good thinking!” Mr. Wolfe responds. “How are you going to investigate that?
How are you going to control the speed, and how will you keep the radius constant?”
Calvin says, “We can either count the number of spins or orbits in 10 seconds or count
how long it takes to make 10 spins. Because we know the radius, we can determine the
circumference, which equals the distance. We’ll keep the stopper constant and spin the
stopper at slow, medium, and fast speeds. We’ll count the number of spins in 10 seconds.
Slow will be five spins in 10 seconds, medium is 10 spins in 10 seconds, and fast is 15
spins in 10 seconds. Then we can determine the speed in meters per second. And for each
trial, we’ll keep the radius the same at a half meter. We are going to tie a stopper to the
string and put the string through the glass rod.”
Mr. Wolfe tells the group, “It sounds like you have a good procedure. Good job, guys.”
Carrying Out the Investigation

As in any good inquiry, students are constantly challenged by problems and discrepan-
cies. They must learn to work and solve problems as a group. As the groups carry out
investigations, some need help in where and how to hold the spring scale, and others need
help in where and how to add more masses or stoppers. Some are learning to use timers to
record time, and others are learning how to use an electronic balance to measure the mass
of the stopper. All the students are encouraged to record results in their science journals.
The notes from their science journals will be used later in a formal laboratory write-up.
During the investigations, Mr. Wolfe continues to rotate to all the groups and helps
the groups work out their problems and ideas. He knows this part of the inquiry takes
patience on the part of the teacher as well as the students. He uses the metaphor of a cir-
cus performer trying to keep several plates spinning on a long stick at once to describe
his role as a facilitator during inquiry lessons.
Mr. Wolfe now informs the groups that their oral arguments are due the next day.
During that time, using a poster, a trifold display board, or a PowerPoint presentation,
students will declare their claim and the supporting evidence they collected during the
investigation. They will subsequently share their findings and conclusions with the class
during a 5-minute presentation where others can agree, disagree, or express some degree
of both. “Be sure to include a graph with a best-fit line of the results,” he tells them. “And
remember, a final write-up of your lab report is due next week,” he adds.
Communicating the Results

The next day’s class begins with the question, “What are the physical factors of an
orbiting body that affect centripetal force?”
211
Mr. Wolfe starts the lesson by saying, “You will share your results with the class, and
we’ll see what you young Newtonians have discovered. Each group will identify its ques-
tion and hypothesis. Tell us each of the manipulated, responding, and controlled vari-
ables, along with a brief overview of the procedure, followed by your concluding claim
and the evidence to support your claim. Be ready to defend and justify your reasoning
and be open to rebuttals and counterclaims to your findings.”
The first mass group states that their evidence leads to the claim that a direct propor-
tional relationship exists when comparing the effect of the mass (m) and the amount of
centripetal force (Fc) exerted. Furthermore, they propose the formula that centripetal
force is proportional to the mass (Fc:m). Jeremy, a member of the second mass group, then
comments, “I agree with their conclusion, because my group’s data confirms the same
conclusion.”
The two radius groups also had results similar to each other’s. During the rebuttal
segment, both groups are challenged as to how they knew they kept the speed of the
orbiting stopper constant. Mario, the class skeptic, said, “Although I agree with your
findings up to a point, I have trouble accepting that you were able to keep the velocity at
a constant speed and at the same time, measure it accurately.” Members of the radius
groups admit that it was difficult controlling the velocity; however, they feel their evi-
dence shows there was an inverse relationship between the centripetal force (Fc) and the
radius (r). They conclude by claiming, “As the radius increases, the centripetal force
decreases and that centripetal force is inversely proportional to the radius.” The radius
groups provide results from their investigation and summarize its findings with the for-
mula Fc:1/r.
For the last variable, velocity, both groups again show similar results. The groups
report that as they kept the number of stoppers (the mass) and radius constant, there was
a squared relationship between the centripetal force and the velocity, and they propose
the formula Fc:v2. Since everyone agreed that the evidence presented supported their
claim, no rebuttals or counterclaims were raised.
Summarizing the Results of the Lesson

Mr. Wolfe now wraps up the lesson by combining the mass, radius, and speed find-
ings into a summary. “We now know,” he starts out, “that three physical properties or
variables affect centripetal force. When you increase the mass, you increase the centripetal
force. When you decrease the radius, you increase the centripetal force. When you
increase the velocity, you increase the centripetal force. That is to say, the centripetal force
is proportional to the mass and the velocity of the orbiting object. We also know that it is
inversely proportional to the radius. We now can say these three proportions are repre-
sented by the formulas Fc:m, Fc:1/r, and therefore, Fc:m/r.
“Now take out your equation sheets. Do you see a formula that looks like this? Fc =
mac and Ac = v2/r. From Newton’s laws, we know that F = ma, so if we combine F = mv2/r
from the lab and F = ma from Newton, we determine that Fc = mac. Thus, v2/r = Ac = v2/r.
When we combine the results from all the groups, we come up with the formula Fc =
mv2/r. You just figured out something that took Newton years to determine.”
Mr. Wolfe now wraps up the lesson by announcing, “Before you leave, there’s one
more thing we need to do—test your understanding with two math problems. Okay, here’s
the first one. A 2-kg cart moves in a circular path with a 10-meter radius and at a constant
speed of 20 m/sec. What is the centripetal acceleration (Ac)? Work individually for a min-
ute, and then pair and share your answer with someone next to you. Check if you and your
partner got the same answer. If you didn’t, each of you should explain to the other how
you solved the problem and work out a solution. If you are having difficulty, raise your
hand and I’ll come around.” (Answer: Ac = v2/r = 202/10 = 400/10 = 40 m/sec.).
After a few minutes, when all the students figure out the correct answer, George
moves on. “Here’s the second question. It’s a follow-up to the first problem. What if the
mass of the cart doubles? Using the formula Fc = M × Ac, what force is needed in each
case? As before, work individually for a minute, and then pair up again and share your
answer.” (Answer: 2 kg [40 m/sec] = 80 Newtons; 4 kg [40 m/sec] = 160 Newtons).
As the bell rings, students start packing up their books for the next class. George reminds
the class that there will be a quiz on the centripetal force lab tomorrow. “Be sure to go over
your lab notes to prepare. I expect everyone to do well on the test. See you tomorrow!”

1. Mr. Wolfe provided two brief math problems to end the lesson. Now it’s your turn to
assess students’ understandings. How would you assess the students’ understanding
of the centripetal force lab? What kinds of questions would you design to test their
understanding? Write three questions or authentic assessments based on the content
of the lab. For example, you may choose to write a question where students apply the
lab to common, everyday experiences such as the clothes washer during the spin
cycle. Using Bloom’s Taxonomy, assign a domain for each of the questions you write.
Share your questions with a partner and provide an honest critique of each other’s
questions.
2. Van Scotter and Pinkerton (2008) conclude their chapter, “Assessing Science as
Inquiry in the Classroom,” by stating,
Assessments of inquiry should align with what we know about learning and
should be balanced and authentic. That is, they should include all the important
features of inquiry, not just those easy to assess. This approach helps ensure that
all students acquire the knowledge of and skills regarding scientific inquiry con-
sidered important. In turn, this foundation of knowledge should help students
participate more effectively in an increasingly complex world. (p. 119)
Formulate an argument by agreeing, disagreeing, or by both agreeing and dis-
agreeing with the authors. Make your argument to a colleague. Consider the fol-
lowing starter sentences to frame your argument:
a. Van Scotter and Pinkerton state that _____. Although some may object since
_______, I agree with the authors’ premise because _______.
b. My classroom experiences support/confirm/verify the statements by Van
Scotter and Pinkerton in that _______.
c. In regard to assessment, Van Scotter and Pinkerton assume that _______. My
experience leads me to a different direction. As a high school science teacher, I
believe _______.
d. I concede that Van Scotter and Pinkerton make a justifiable claim based on recent
research; nevertheless, in my classroom _______.
e. Van Scotter and Pinkerton claim that _______, and although I see their point, I
have mixed feelings. On one hand, I agree that _______, while on the other hand,
I insist that _______.
11
Creating a Classroom
Culture of Inquiry and
Argumentation
W e are now at the final chapter. The aim of this chapter is (a) to synthesize all the
previous chapters as to what we now know about becoming an inquiry- and
argument-based teacher and (b) to explore the essential elements in creating,
cultivating, and nurturing a culture of creativity and curiosity in the high school science
classroom.
Earlier in Chapter 4, you were introduced to the 3Rs and how the transformation of
classroom practice requires a systemic change connecting a constructivist philosophy
about how students learn to the mechanics involved in adopting new teaching strategies.
Chapter 7 highlighted the first “R”—Restructuring the science curriculum and lessons,
including the modification of traditional labs. Chapter 9 highlighted the second “R”—
Retooling the teacher’s instructional strategies and questioning skills through ongoing
professional development. And now, Chapter 11 will introduce the third “R”—Reculturing
the classroom norms and relationships to foster inquiry and argument-based strategies
into a learner-centered environment.
To begin the discussion on reculturing the classroom, we need to first define what we
mean by culture. In a global sense, culture is a system of shared beliefs, values, customs,
behaviors, rites, and rituals that members of a group or a society use (explicitly and
implicitly) to govern their survival and with one another. In a larger society, these rites
and rituals are passed on from one generation to the next. All of us are certainly familiar
with the meaning of the terms such as American culture, Asian American culture, African
American culture, multicultural, cultural diversity, and even counterculture.
In regard to school culture, one teacher described it as “the unwritten rules and tradi-
tions, the norms and the expectations that determine how teachers interact together, how
we adhere to school’s goals, and how we interact with students and support their aca-
demic achievement.” A second teacher described culture by saying, “It’s the sum total of
213
the ways we do things around here. School culture shapes the hundreds of decisions and
transactions we make every day from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Culture affects everything
from our daily instruction to the way we communicate with each other in the faculty
lounge to the way we interact with students both in and out of the classroom.” Take a
minute now to define your own definition of school culture. Jot down on a piece of paper
or in the back of this book what school culture means to you. How would you describe
your school’s culture? How similar or different is your statement from the two responses
you just read?
In observing various school settings, it’s not hard to recognize that each school district
in a surrounding area may have its own distinct culture. You may have come to that con-
clusion if you shared your school culture statement with another person in your class or
study group. In some cases, different schools within the same district may have different
cultures. Different departments within the same school may have different cultures, and
different classrooms even within the same department may have different cultures. For
example, science teacher A may have one distinct classroom culture while science teacher
B, across the hall, may have an entirely different classroom culture. Science classroom A
may have a positive, healthy, professional, constructive, and energetic culture, while
classroom B in the same science department may have a negative, toxic, dysfunctional,
destructive, or even depressing culture. The differences, in part, often lie with teachers’
views on how learning occurs and what they believe constitutes good teaching.
In the business world, there’s a strong link between financial performance and the
organizational culture. Take one look at Fortune magazine’s top 100 companies to work
for in 2012, and you’ll find such names as Hasbro, Mattel, Microsoft, Nordstrom,
Starbucks, and Zappos. With all these companies, you’ll find a core commitment to excel-
lence and aspects of a culture where employees (a) share in the decision-making process,
(b) work in collaborative and self-managing teams, and (c) put the needs of the customer
first. Likewise, in the education world, there’s a strong link between student performance
and a school’s culture. The research is quite clear that schools that demonstrate a healthy
culture tend to be more productive in terms of student achievement. These days, many
school districts are learning valuable lessons from the top 100 companies.
In shifting our focus back to the classroom, a culture of inquiry and argumentation
incorporates an atmosphere where there is
•• openness to asking questions and seeking answers,

•• a commitment to critical-thinking and metacognitive skills,
•• ownership and self-directed learning,
•• collaboration,
•• a willingness to learn new ideas,
•• celebration for student success, and
•• respect for others’ points of view.
Reagan, Case, and Brubacher (2000) may have put it best when they argued that
a culture of inquiry, in short, entails not merely teachers engaged in inquiry but
teachers and others collaboratively and collegially seeking to understand better
and thus improve aspects of the schooling experience. For a culture of inquiry to
exist and be maintained in a school, an ongoing commitment to valuing curiosity,
mutual respect, and support among teachers and between teachers and adminis-
trators, a willingness to try new ideas and practices, and the ability to remain open
to the unforeseen and unpredicted are required. (p. 43)
CREATING A CLASSROOM CULTURE OF INQUIRY AND ARGUMENTATION
215
Creating a classroom culture of inquiry requires a systemic reorganization. Such reor-

ganizing should comprise many of the following aspects:
•• Nurturing relationships and building trust between teacher and students, as well
as student to student
•• Encouraging creativity where students take risks
•• Having students take responsibility for planning and deciding their own work
•• Providing students with choice within a framework of learning
•• Giving students increasing responsibility for deciding how to plan their investiga-
tions, propose possible solutions, gather and organize evidence to support or refute
their propositions, and make sense of their results in formulating and communicat-
ing explanations through scientific argumentation
•• Fostering a sense of community and belongingness
The Environment of a
Traditional Classroom
To understand the contrast in classroom cultures, let’s differentiate the environments
between traditional and inquiry-based classrooms. Traditional high school science
classrooms usually look different from inquiry-based classrooms. In a traditional class-
room setting, students often sit in straight rows of desks and learn through rote memo-
rization. Students attentively listen to the teacher standing in the front of the room
imparting information, while compliantly taking notes. The recitation may be followed
by a question-and-answer period in which students are presented with review ques-
tions that summarize the lesson and evaluate the students’ understanding of the con-
cept just presented. The lesson is structured around “teacher talk” and student
responses. In this case, a single textbook usually guides the teacher’s lesson and pro-
vides additional readings and questions for homework.
In teacher-centered classrooms, demonstrations are often used by the teacher to
arouse interest or reinforce a concept that was previously introduced. A demonstration
enables the teacher to model a particular phenomenon and provide all the students
with an observable experience from which an explanation or a discussion may follow.
Discussions are also an important aspect of traditional science classrooms; however, in
teacher-centered classrooms, the line of communication is too often an interaction
between the teacher and one student at a time. Toward the end of a unit, the teacher
provides the students with a cookbook-type laboratory to verify that the information
presented on previous days’ lectures is correct. At the end of the lesson or unit, student
understanding is evaluated through an objective-type test containing true/false or
multiple-choice questions.
The description above may be a bit exaggerated, but it serves to describe one extreme
end of the spectrum. That is not to say that traditional classrooms are any better or worse
than inquiry-based classrooms; it just means the behaviors of the students and the teacher,
as well as the appearance of the physical environment, are different. There are instances,
such as (a) the first week of school, (b) when making an expository presentation through
direct instruction, or (c) when presenting an imposing amount of information in a short
period of time, when a more teacher-centered classroom is preferred. Additionally, tradi-
tional classrooms are more appropriate when the teacher is trying to establish classroom
order and management. Traditional classrooms may also be favored by students who are
auditory and visual learners and for those who prefer a more structured setting.
Despite the preference for inquiry-based teaching in the national standards, we still
find a sizable percentage of high school science classrooms to be largely teacher-directed.
The reasons for this may rest in the relative ease of expository teaching, the numerous
content standards and high-stakes assessments that teachers face, as well as their previ-
ously held beliefs about what comprises good teaching and learning.
The Environment of an
Inquiry-Based Classroom
In contrast to traditional settings, inquiry-based classrooms are quite different. They are
often described as student- or learner-centered. In inquiry classrooms, we usually find a
culture that fosters creativity and collaboration. The atmosphere promotes an effective
learning situation by making the students feel that their teacher and peers value their
ideas, thoughts, and opinions. The classroom provides a positive socialization promoting
active involvement along with inter- and intrapersonalization.
Some of the characteristics of an inquiry-centered classroom consist of the following:
1. “What if . . .” and “I wonder . . .” questions posted throughout the room

2. Concept maps and graphic organizers displayed on the walls
3. Evidence of student work displayed and celebrated throughout the room
4. Students’ desks arranged in a “U” shape or in groups of two, three, or four
5. Separate learning stations for extension investigations, as well as individual and
small group work
6. A collection of fiction and nonfiction books, science magazines and journals, and
other primary sources of information on the shelves
7. A box or a crate for student portfolios and reflection journals
8. Posters and display boards summarizing the claims made and evidences cited
from oral arguments and explanations
9. Out-of-the-way supply areas where materials are readily available in bins or
containers with additional areas set aside for storing projects and extended
investigations
10. Videotaping equipment available for recording students’ scientific arguments and
analyzing students’ performance
11. Computer resources available for accessing Internet sources and containing sup-
plemental software to review or reinforce science topics
12. Classroom sets or collections of multiple textbooks for in-class usage and/or stu-
dent sign-out
Students in an Inquiry-Based Classroom

As in the classroom culture, there are many ways students in an inquiry-based class-
room demonstrate different behaviors and habits of mind from their counterparts in
217
traditional classrooms. In an inquiry-based science classroom, high school students do

the following:
•• Enjoy posing questions and demonstrate a desire to learn

•• Show an interest and imagination in science by acting as researchers/investigators
and viewing themselves as scientists
•• Engage in diligent investigations from their self-generated questions
•• Reflect on and take responsibility for their individual learning
• • Persist in asking questions to clarify and confirm the accuracy of their
understandings
•• Work respectfully and communicate in collaborative groups
•• Utilize higher-order thinking skills to solve problems and make judgments about
their work
•• Consider skepticism and alternative models or points of view
•• Use claims and unbiased evidence to form explanations and arguments
•• Connect new knowledge to prior understandings
•• Make decisions as to how to communicate their work
•• Demonstrate their science understandings and abilities in a variety of forms
•• Act as “reflective friends” through peer evaluation to seek other opinions and
assess the strengths and limitations of their work
•• Demonstrate confidence in their learning, take risks, and persevere
Students Acting as Researchers

Like the heart pumping blood, commitment, curiosity, and imagination pump ques-
tions through a learner’s thought process. When students act as researchers, they take on
a new role in an inquiry-based classroom. Action research leads students to use integrated
process skills such as identifying variables, clarifying assumptions, writing hypotheses,
designing investigations, constructing data tables and graphs, analyzing relationships
between variables, and justifying and defending their findings and claims.
Having students act as researchers is a challenging endeavor for both the students and the
teacher. For students to take on this new role, teachers must assume a new role too. Teachers
must believe that students have the skills and interest to carry out their own investigations
and generate their own ideas. When students act as researchers, they start taking responsibil-
ity for their own learning. That means students are given the opportunity to raise their own
questions on a topic of their choice. Many students prefer answering their own questions to
solving someone else’s problems. It also means students can make decisions about their own
work: how they will collect data, how they will organize the data they collect, and how they
will communicate their findings to the rest of the class. By planning and designing their inqui-
ries, students begin to use higher-level thinking skills, such as analyzing and evaluating, to
guide the design and course of their investigations. Teachers will also find that they need to
provide fewer answers and more support to students. This support may include guiding the
students to an Internet location to search on a particular topic, suggesting they call a local
expert on the topic, or recommending primary sources for the students to review.
According to the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996), to challenge stu-
dents to accept and share responsibility for their own work,
teachers [should] make it clear that each student must take responsibility for his
or her work. Teachers also create opportunities for [students’] own learning, indi-
vidually and as members of groups. Teachers do so by supporting student ideas
and questions and by encouraging students to pursue them. Teachers give indi-
vidual students active roles in the design and implementation of investigations, in
the work with their peers, and in student assessment of their own work. (p. 36)
Students Working in Groups

In the real world, scientists and engineers work predominantly in groups and less
often as individual, isolated researchers. Therefore, the collaborative nature of integrating
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics should be mirrored and strongly rein-
forced by recurrent group work in the high school classroom—giving students ample
opportunities to share the responsibility for learning with each other.
There are instances however, when students should work individually and other
times when collaborative group work is most appropriate. This decision is often left to the
discretion of the teacher, depending on (a) the objective and the complexity of the task,
(b) safety concerns, (c) the availability of materials, and (d) the particular learning style of
the individual student. In most situations, group work can help students learn from each
other, share and challenge their ideas, and distribute the work in an equitable fashion.
This way, students learn to construct and negotiate knowledge together and build posi-
tive peer relationships. Group work also allows students to build self-confidence while
working collaboratively to complete a common goal. Having students work in groups,
however, always requires consideration of gender and cultural equity, as well as the inter-
ests, needs, and abilities of the group members.
In high school settings, group work often becomes louder than traditional seat-time
work. Because students are expected to communicate, deliberate, and move about the
room while working in groups, classroom management techniques become essential.
Students need and want rules of conduct to be established. They want to know the limits
of classroom behavior. Problems often occur in inquiry-based classrooms when the
teacher fails to effectively communicate group work expectations. The teacher can
enhance the effectiveness of classroom rules by having students participate in deciding
what rules need to be enforced while doing a scientific investigation. The students can
agree to the rules and post them in the classroom. Classes can consider adopting rules of
conduct by citing the positive behaviors that are expected (starting with the word Do)
rather than rules written in a negative tone (starting with the word Don’t).
Students Utilizing Higher-Level Thinking Skills

In a community of inquirers, utilizing exploration and discourse strategies stimulates
students to think critically about the data and evidence accumulated during their inquiry.
This motivates students to analyze and synthesize the data and to make judgments and
evaluations concerning their claims, evidence, and explanations. These types of thinking
skills are far superior in developing scientific literacy than the lower-level, knowledge-
type recall questions often repeatedly posed to students in traditional classrooms, where
the memorization of science factoids is valued. In contrast, as students experience inquiry
investigations, they use critical-thinking skills that cause them to reflect on their work
and pose logical arguments to defend their conclusions.
Students Showing Interest in Science

“Why do we have to learn this stuff anyway?” one 12th-grade girl asked in her phys-
ics class. “Because,” the teacher responded, “it’s going to be on the test.” Have you been
219
asked this question? It seems every teacher has, many times in his or her career. From the
point of view of the student, what does the question mean? Does it mean she doesn’t like
physics? Does it mean she doesn’t like this particular lesson? Or does it mean she doesn’t
understand what she is expected to do? All we know at this point is that the student
might not see the relevance of the content she’s expected to learn.
Posing problems of importance and relevance is an integral aspect of inquiry and
constructivist teaching. That does not mean that in inquiry classrooms the student decides
what he or she wants to learn and when. Nor does it mean that we have to wait until the
student wants to learn about Newtonian physics before the topic can be presented. It does
mean, however, that the teacher mediates relevance by engaging students in meaningful
problem-solving investigations. According to Brooks and Brooks (1999), “the inquiring
teacher mediates the classroom environment in accordance with both the primary con-
cept she has chosen for the class inquiry and her growing understanding of students
emerging interests and cognitive abilities within the concept” (p. 380). Making learning
meaningful is another central theme in inquiry-based learning. Brooks and Brooks go on
to say,
It’s unfortunate that much of what we seek to teach our students is of little interest
to them at that particular point in their lives. Curriculums and syllabi developed
by publishers or state-level specialists are based on adult notions of what students
of different ages need to know. Even when the topics are of interest to students,
the recommended methodologies for teaching the topics sometimes are not. Little
wonder, then, why more of those magnificent moments don’t occur. (p. 106)
In inquiry-based classrooms, students are engaged in investigations that interest

them. As a result, students demonstrate open-mindedness and curiosity, and they gain an
appreciation for and positive attitude toward science as well. Seeing themselves working
as researchers and scientists does much to promote interest in science and encourages
students to pursue further science and engineering courses in the years ahead.
Teachers in an Inquiry-Based Classroom

The teacher’s ABCs (attitudes, behaviors, and competencies) are paramount in inquiry-
based classrooms. They set the stage for teaching and active learning. When observing
inquiry-based high school teachers, we often see styles of presentation, organization,
questioning skills, and even body language that differ from those observed in traditional
settings. There are probably 100 or more behaviors that can describe an inquiry- and
argument-based high school science teacher. The following is a list of just 40 attitudes,
behaviors, and competencies that often accompany inquiry-based teaching. In high
school classrooms, inquiry science teachers
1. use A Framework for K−12 Science Education (2012) and the Next Generation Science
Standards (as well as statewide standards) to guide their long-range instructional
plans;
2. select learning experiences that align with the national standards and the stu-
dents’ interests and abilities;
3. create a classroom culture that encourages positive scientific attitudes and habits
of mind;
4. provide opportunities for metacognitive strategies;

5. stimulate and nurture students’ curiosity;
6. limit the use of lecturing and direct instruction to occasions when the lesson can-
not be taught through hands-on or inquiry-based instruction;
7. demonstrate flexibility by balancing and mediating their preplanned lessons and
questions with the activities and directions prompted by students’ questions;
8. assess students’ prior knowledge at the start of a lesson or unit of study and
adjust instruction accordingly;
9. use students’ prior knowledge as a basis for introducing new concepts and
accommodating the lesson plan based on misconceptions;
10. make learning relevant and meaningful by taking student interests into account
and basing lessons on students’ prior suppositions;
11. use counterintuitive demonstrations and discrepant events to pose contradictions
and challenge students’ previously held conceptions;
12. use inquiries and investigations to “anchor” new information to previously held
knowledge;
13. initiate classroom dialogue and discourse by posing essential or starter questions,
offering prompts, and demonstrating thought-provoking discrepant events
throughout the lesson;
14. models inquisitive actions by posing prompting and probing questions as well as
asking questions that require higher-level and critical-thinking skills;
15. use wait-time techniques appropriately and do not interrupt students in the
middle of their questions and/or answers;
16. rephrase student questions and responses so students can begin to answer their
own questions;
17. plan lessons utilizing the 5E Learning Cycle;
18. refrain from divulging answers and pose prompts to clarify students’ questions;
19. say “thank you” or “great answer” in response to student contributions and give
positive reinforcement for student contributions and exemplary work;
20. ask follow-up questions to a student’s answer rather than saying “okay” or just
repeating the answer;
21. maintain appropriate classroom management during hands-on investigations by
displaying rules in a positive sense, providing expectations and structure, and
creating a safe and well-organized room;
22. establish everyday routines for group interaction and when retrieving and return-
ing materials;
23. arrange students’ desks for collaborative work in small groups;
24. focus the lesson on engaging and relevant problem-solving situations;
25. move about the classroom and rotate among the small groups throughout the
lesson;
221
26. encourage students to design and carry out their own investigations;
27. kneel to make on-level, eye-to-eye contact when speaking to students in small-
group settings;
28. value students’ responses and view wrong answers as an “open door” to their
naive conceptions or misconceptions;
29. keep students on-task by having them support and debate their data, evidence,
and conclusions;
30. use instructional classroom time effectively and efficiently by beginning the les-
son on time and using the entire period for instructional purposes, not as time to
do homework;
31. integrate science content with process skills and problem-solving strategies, as
well as technology, engineering, mathematics, and other subjects;
32. act as a facilitator, mediator, initiator, and coach while modeling the behaviors of
inquiry, curiosity, and wonder;
33. use primary sources of information rather than, or in conjunction with, commer-
cially published textbooks;
34. encourage communication skills such as speaking and listening;
35. moderate classroom discussions so all students can share their points of view;
36. encourage students to use concept maps, graphic organizers, and drawings of
models to explain and demonstrate newly acquired knowledge;
37. assess student performance in a variety of forms;
38. monitor student progress continuously on a daily basis and assist students in
monitoring their own progress;
39. initiate and orchestrate discourse and scientific argumentation
40. keep current in teaching methods by joining a professional organization, such as
 the National Science Teachers Association (www.nsta.org)
 the National Association of Biology Teachers (www.nabt.org)
 the National Earth Science Teachers Association (www.nestanet.org)
 the American Chemical Society (www.acs.org)
 the American Association for Physics Teachers (www.aapt.org)
and reading appropriate journals, such as

 The Science Teacher
 The American Biology Teacher
 The Earth Scientist
 ChemMatters
 The Physics Teacher
You can probably think of another 10 attitudes, behaviors, and competencies to round
out the list to an even 50. If you are reading alone or working with others on this section,
now would be a good time to make any additions to the list. Go back and reflect on the
habits of mind that were introduced in Chapter 1. Think how these dispositions are an
essential ingredient in cultivating and nurturing a culture of inquiry and argumentation.
A Classroom Culture That

Fosters Inquiry and Argumentation
Much to the consternation of those unfamiliar with inquiry, developing one’s inquiry-based
teaching techniques is more than just searching for and then implementing an inquiry activ-
ity in the classroom. That results in what one colleague of mine calls “an inquiry event.”
Becoming an inquiry-based teacher is far more than finding an inquiry activity to do for
Monday’s lab period. As you read in Chapter 4, becoming an inquiry-based teacher
involves the 3Rs: Restructuring, Retooling, and Reculturing. Up until now, we have
addressed restructuring and retooling. Now it’s time to address the final R, reculturing.
Reculturing implies creating, cultivating, and nurturing an environment of inquiry
where the classroom norms and relationships foster a learner-centered environment, and where
questions, inquisitiveness, and risk-taking are valued. In the education world, where so
many bureaucratic rules and regulations seem to be placed upon classroom teachers,
providentially each teacher can create his or her own classroom culture. Thus it is within
the influence of the teacher to create an active, healthy, creative culture—or a passive one.
Stepping away from the status quo and transforming the culture of teaching and learning
is, however, a challenging task. It takes a strategic plan and concrete solutions to address
the gap between your present state and your desired state. There are no seismic changes
here. Change in teaching can be glacially slow compared to the digital technology we
plug our earbuds into these days. What is exciting, however, is that we have the ability to
create a classroom culture that stresses core values of inquiry and collaboration, coupled
with excellence in performance. Teachers have the ability to create a sense of community,
where they model the spirit and nature of science and act as a coexplorer learning side-
by-side with students. Teachers have the ability to be agents of change where the owner-
ship of learning shifts from the teacher to the student and where students take control of
and responsibility for their own learning. And most of all, teachers have the ability—and
the professional responsibility—to infuse scientific literacy and 21st-century skills into
their lessons.
Creating a culture of inquiry involves six basic steps:
1. Assessing your present and desired states

2. Expressing a clear macrovision for instructional change
3. Developing an action plan of professional development to bridge the gap between
the present and desired states
4. Forming a support system
5. Translating new strategies learned into practice
6. Monitoring change toward inquiry and argumentation
Since we addressed aspects of steps two through five in previous chapters, we will
focus this section on the first and sixth steps: assessing and monitoring.
To assess and monitor one’s ability to teach through inquiry and argumentation, the list
of Seven Segments of Scientific Inquiry will come back into play. Figure 11.1 offers a mech-
anism to measure the frequency of each of the subsets and behaviors of the Seven Segments.
By placing a check (a) in the appropriate column for the range of number of times you
presently provide opportunities for students to engage in each of the behaviors, you easily
223
identify your present state of teaching through inquiry. Then, by placing a star () in the
column for the range of number of times you desire to provide opportunities for students
to engage in each of the behaviors, you easily identify your desired state of teaching
through inquiry. Looking at the difference in the marks provided for each behavior can lead
to the type of professional development you need to close the gap between the two states.
Figure 11.1 Assessing the Seven Segments of Scientific Inquiry
0–1 2–4 5–7 8+

Times Times a Times a Times
How Often Do Students . . . a Year Year Year a Year
1. The Question: Exploring a Phenomenon
Observe a phenomenon or discrepant event (or engage
in an open-ended exploration)
Assess their prior knowledge about the phenomenon
by asking, “What do I know about what’s happening?”
Assess others’ prior knowledge about the phenomenon
by asking, “What do others know about what’s
happening?”
2. The Question: Focusing on a Question
Make a list of several questions to investigate from the
observations made
Choose one (or the first) question to investigate
Scrutinize the question by asking, “Is the question

investigatable?”
Modify the question, if necessary
Seek initial assumptions and evidence through

additional observations of the phenomenon
Clarify the question by asking, “Before designing an
investigation, do I completely understand the
question?”
Rewrite the question, if necessary
Write the question on a sentence strip and post
3. The Procedure: Planning the Investigation

Decide what data need to be collected to answer the
question
Identify the variables and constants needed to
investigate the question
(Continued)
0–1 2–4 5–7 8+

Design a controlled experiment or investigation to
answer the question
Identify the materials needed to carry out the
investigation
Draw an illustration of the materials and set up for the
investigation
Propose one or more hypotheses to test a tentative
explanation or predict an outcome of the investigation
Design a chart or table to organize the data to be
collected during the investigation
Identify safety rules to follow during the investigation
4. The Procedure: Conducting the Investigation

Carry out the investigation
Record data in the proper column of the chart or table
Graph the results, if applicable
Redesign and retry the investigation, if necessary
5. The Results: Analyzing the Data and Evidence

Interpret and make meaning from the data
Determine if the data is biased or flawed in any way
Seek patterns and relationships among the variables
Draw an initial conclusion based on the data
Analyze the data and evidence to support, modify, or

refute the previously stated hypothesis or prediction
Make a claim based on the evidence
6. The Results: Constructing New Knowledge

Form an explanation (or model) from the claim and
supporting evidence
Relate the explanation (or model) to other existing
models
Reflect upon and make meaning as to their newly
acquired knowledge
Connect new knowledge to their prior knowledge and
the knowledge of others
225
0–1 2–4 5–7 8+

7. The Results: Communicating New Knowledge
Choose a means to communicate their explanation (or
model) and findings to others (e.g., oral report, poster,
PowerPoint, written report)
Discuss their results and conclusions with others
Use scientific reasoning skills to link their claim and

supporting evidence
Engage in scientific argumentation, allowing others to
critique their investigation and claim and provide
counterclaims to their findings
Make modifications to their explanation or model, if
needed
Consider follow-up questions to investigate
Figure 11.2 offers a similar mechanism for measuring the frequency of each of the
subsets and behaviors of the Seven Segments highlighted in a particular lab. The numbers
in the upper right corner correspond to the number of labs for the course. The sheet can
accommodate 10 labs. You can make additional copies for labs 11–20 or as many labs as
you provide during the school year. Say for example, Ms. Jackson, a 10th-grade earth sci-
ence teacher, reviews the first lab of the school year on testing and identifying mineral
samples. She places a check (a) in the first column for each of the behaviors highlighted
for that particular investigation. This way she identifies which inquiry skills she is having
students engage in for that investigation. For the second and subsequent labs, she repeats
the procedure and observes which behaviors are presented and which skills still need to
be emphasized in future inquiries. Ms. Jackson uses the monitoring chart to appraise how
frequently she is involving students in scientific inquiry and moving toward establishing
a classroom culture of inquiry.
Figure 11.2 Monitoring the Seven Segments of Scientific Inquiry
How Often Do Students . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. The Question: Exploring a Phenomenon
Observe a phenomenon or discrepant event
(or engage in an open-ended exploration)
Assess their prior knowledge about the
phenomenon by asking, “What do I know
about what’s happening?”
(Continued)
(Continued)

Assess others’ prior knowledge about the
phenomenon by asking, “What do others
know about what’s happening?”
2. The Question: Focusing on a Question
Make a list of several questions to
investigate from the observations made
Choose one (or the first) question to
investigate
Scrutinize the question by asking, “Is the
question investigatable?”
Modify the question, if necessary
Seek initial assumptions and evidence

through additional observations of the
phenomenon
Clarify the question by asking, “Before
designing an investigation, do I completely
understand the question?”
Rewrite the question, if necessary
Write the question on a sentence strip and

post
3. The Procedure: Planning the Investigation
Decide what data need to be collected to
answer the question
Identify the variables and constants needed
to investigate the question
Design a controlled experiment or
investigation to answer the question
Identify the materials needed to carry out
the investigation
Draw an illustration of the materials and set
up for the investigation
Propose one or more hypotheses to test a
tentative explanation or predict an outcome
of the investigation
Design a chart or table to organize the data
to be collected during the investigation
Identify safety rules to follow during the
investigation
227

4. The Procedure: Conducting the Investigation
Carry out the investigation
Record data in the proper column of the

chart or table
Graph the results, if applicable
Redesign and retry the investigation, if

necessary
5. The Results: Analyzing the Data and Evidence
Interpret and make meaning from the data
Determine if the data are biased or flawed

in any way
Seek patterns and relationships among the
variables
Draw an initial conclusion based on the
data
Analyze the data and evidence to support,
modify, or refute the previously stated
hypothesis or prediction
Make a claim based on the evidence
6. The Results: Constructing New Knowledge

Form an explanation (or model) from the
claim and supporting evidence
Relate the explanation (or model) to other
existing models
Reflect upon and make meaning as to their
newly acquired knowledge
Connect new knowledge to their prior
knowledge and the knowledge of others
7. The Results: Communicating New Knowledge
Choose a means to communicate their
explanation (or model) and findings to
others (e.g., oral report, poster, PowerPoint,
written report)
Discuss their results and conclusions with
others
(Continued)
(Continued)

Use scientific reasoning skills to link their
claim and supporting evidence
Engage in scientific argumentation, allowing
others to critique their investigation and
claim and provide counterclaims to their
findings
Make modifications to their explanation or
model, if needed
Consider follow-up questions to investigate
Ms. Jackson is mindful of the necessity to frequently monitor her instruction as well
as her students’ progress. She, like thousands of other inquiry-based science teachers, is
committed to using the observations collected as formative assessments to modify her
lessons and make adjustments to meet the needs of all her students. In this last case study,
we will read about one teacher’s reflection on his 30-year career; a career that modeled
the desire to make a difference and exhibited the decision to differentiate instruction to
meet the diversity of his students.
Reflecting on a Teaching Career

Research suggests that highly effective teachers of science plan programs for their
students by
1. selecting science content and adapting and designing curricula to meet the inter-
ests, knowledge, understanding, abilities, and experience of students;
2. recognizing and responding to student diversity and encouraging all students to
participate fully in science learning; and
3. displaying and demanding respect for diverse ideas, skills, and experiences of all
students.
Although most of the case studies in this book focus on the “how to” or mechanics of
a lesson, it is equally important to consider the “affective side,” or meaning, of a lesson
and address the reasons why most of us chose to enter the teaching profession—to make
a difference in this world. Loosely translated, for many of us, that means to educate
young adolescents and to develop their abilities to appreciate the natural world. Here’s
how one high school science teacher made that happen.
The Story of Mr. Baker

It was a rainy Friday afternoon in the fall of 1995, when Ronald Baker got a call from
a woman he did not even know. The students had all gone home for the weekend, and
229
Ron gazed out over a sea of empty desks, enjoying one of those few quiet moments when
all the noise and goings-on from teaching seemed to fade away at the prospect of a 3-day
weekend.
“Hello, Mr. Baker,” the woman said. “This is Dr. Carol Bailey from Suffolk College.
I’m the supervisor for student teaching placement, and I have a request from one of our
science-education majors to do a student teaching experience with you. I know,” she con-
tinued, “Suffolk is quite a ways from your school, and we usually don’t place student
teachers that far from campus, but this is a special request. A young man, if I can find his
name here—yes, Miguel Sanchez—requested a placement specifically with you.”
Ron thought to himself—the name sounded familiar. Could it be the same Miguel
Sanchez he had in his third-period science class almost 8 years ago? In an instant, Ron
recalled his first year of teaching as if it were yesterday.
Having graduated from college in December, his teacher certification in hand, Ron
quickly discovered that all the good teaching jobs were filled in September. He was
offered, however, a substitute teaching position that would last the rest of the school year.
Eager to start his science teaching career and naive enough to think he was going to make
a difference in the lives of high schoolers, Ron accepted the position and found himself,
a week later, in West Hill High School, Room 313.
In looking back, he’d describe that first year of teaching as pure hell. Ron was assigned
five classes and four preps: one 11th-grade general chemistry class for noncollege-bound
students, two 9th-grade general science classes, one environmental science elective for
seniors (an easy course for those needing an additional science credit), and one infamous
class of “Consumer Science” for students who had accumulated no science credits toward
high school graduation. He soon discovered that he was the third teacher these students
had had since September. The previous two were driven out the door, and in the eyes of
the students, he was soon to become number three.
The first week, bound and determined to succeed, Ron started out with the “don’t
smile until Christmas” attitude. Unfortunately, Christmas had occurred the previous
month, and it was the beginning of the second semester. He thought to himself, “Could I
not smile until Easter?” For each of the classes, Ron followed the same approach: be stern
and maintain classroom discipline. “Be fair and firm,” his college methods professors had
told him. He decided that he would keep instruction simple and to the point in his class
lectures. After all, he had a lot of catching up to do because the students had not learned
very much from their previous teachers.
Despite his noble intentions, Ron almost gave up by the February mid-winter break.
He felt he had failed miserably. And though the chemistry, general science, and environ-
mental classes were starting to show some improvement, consumer science was a disas-
ter. One student started each day’s class by shouting out from the back of the room, “Hey,
Mr. Baker, why do we have to learn this stuff? This is ‘bambino science.’” That student
was Miguel Sanchez. Mr. Sanchez, as Ron referred to him, was constantly in trouble. By
February, Miguel had been suspended for 3 days for insubordination to his English
teacher, one day for smoking in the boys’ lavatory, and one day for skipping seventh-
period social studies class. In short, school was a struggle for Miguel, but he still managed
to pass from grade to grade, making low Cs.
Miguel’s teachers labeled him as a troubled student. His classmates often referred to
him as “loco.” But Ron knew Miguel was not dumb; he was just another high school kid
trying to struggle through the awkward years of being a teenager. In fact, it was because of
Miguel that Ron decided he had to do something different to get through to his students.
“It is my responsibility,” he thought, “to find ways to make their classes meaningful and
assure them that I am in it for the long haul.” That meant coming back next Monday, the
Monday after that, and all the rest of the Mondays until the end of the school year. Ron
became determined not to abandon them like the other teachers had.
Ron got rid of the book he was using for consumer science and decided to make class
relevant to the students’ daily lives. After all, there were no age-appropriate textbooks for
high school students like Miguel who were one to two grade levels below in reading.
“Why not,” he thought, “teach the course from a practical, problem-solving, and inquiry-
based approach?” Having shared his concerns with Miss Moore, another West Hill sci-
ence teacher, Ron began to find out about inquiry- and argument-based teaching. From
her undergraduate college days, she gave Ron a classic book, Inquiry Techniques for
Teaching Science (1968), by William Romey, and several more recent articles from The
Science Teacher. It was then that Ron decided that his classes would no longer be solely
lectures and verification labs. He started having students do their own investigations and
guided them through discovery-based experiences. To become more proficient, Ron real-
ized that he needed additional coursework, so he enrolled in a course on experience-
based learning.
The second change centered on Miguel. Ron asked Dr. Austin, the school psychologist,
to administer a screening test for Miguel’s reading skills. They later found out that Miguel
was not slow at all; in fact, he was quite smart. Unfortunately, Miguel had dyslexia—he
wasn’t able to see words as they are. To Miguel, some letters looked backward, and some
looked reversed. “He’s a smart, curious kid with a phenomenal desire to see how things
work,” Dr. Austin wrote in her report. Upon further examination, they discovered that in
3rd grade, Miguel was assigned to a special-education class for children who are learning
disabled. A year later, despite extra help, he still couldn’t decipher a sentence. The school
psychologist explained to Miguel that his brain wasn’t impaired, just different.
Several months later, Miguel made it through consumer science with a B, and Ron
Baker made it through his first year at West Hill. Ron was more determined than ever that
inquiry-based teaching would become his passion. His goal for the next year would be to
take his lessons one step further and integrate argument-based practices into the stu-
dents’ investigations. After all, he knew the kids in consumer science were good at argu-
ing with each other and always had an opinion to express. On graduation day, Miguel
came up to Ron and handed him a note. Ron put it in his pocket, and they said their
good-byes. As Ron drove home from the graduation ceremony, he remembered the note
and pulled it from his sports jacket. Ron steered his dented 1970 green Ford Fairlane to
the side of the road and read the letter.
Dear Mr. Baker, the letter began. Thank you for being my teacher and having patience
with me. Because of you, I was able to pass science and graduate from high school. I’m learn-
ing to live with my dyslexia. I know that I have to fight it for the rest of my life. I am sorry
I was so much trouble in your class. You made learning fun and taught me how to inquire
and think for myself. Maybe someday I’ll be a teacher just like you. Your friend, Miguel.
After graduation, some of the teachers at West Hill High School heard Miguel had
joined the Army. Nonetheless, Ron didn’t hear about him again until that rainy Friday
afternoon when the woman from the college called.
Miguel had grown up. It was true—he had joined the Army, and upon an honorable
discharge, he had enrolled in a local 2-year college where he majored in sociology
and received an associate degree. Then Miguel transferred to Suffolk College and enrolled
in a science education program. In his senior year at Suffolk, thanks to the unusual
231
long-distance placement, he returned to West Hill, renewed his friendship with Mr. Baker,
and successfully completed his student teaching. This time, however, it was not from a
seat in the back of the room. This time, it was Miguel up in front of the entire class, and
now it was Ron’s turn to shape this energetic young teacher into the inquiry-based
teacher Miguel had inspired Ron to become 8 years earlier.
The September following his student teaching experience, he was offered a teaching
position at West Hill and became a member of the science department, where he has
remained for 30 years. For the first two years of his probationary status, Ron acted as
Miguel’s mentor. He helped Miguel refine and sharpen his skills in becoming an excellent
inquiry-based teacher.
This past June, after 33 years of teaching and 15 years as science department chairper-
son, Mr. Baker decided to retire. It gave Ron great pleasure when Miguel made the intro-
ductory greeting at his retirement party. What a wonderful honor it was, Ron thought that
day, that no finer gift could a teacher be given than to have the opportunity to see that the
things we, as teachers, value result in a legacy of something important to us. Surrounded
by family, friends, and devoted and talented teachers, Ron reflected on the pleasure of
spending his career with Miguel Sanchez, his dearest student, his colleague, and his
friend. Ron remarked how their personal and professional relationship grew like the
rings of a tree. Minutes later, Miguel presented Ron with a plaque. On it were inscribed
the following words:
The average teacher tells us. The good teacher tells us and explains why. The better teacher
shows us and explains why. But the greatest teacher inspires us to inquire for ourselves.
You were always a great inspiration to us.
As Ron walked up to the podium to accept his plaque, he was overcome with humil-
ity and pride. He and Miguel smiled at each other and embraced. Neither of them could
hold back the tears any longer. During his retirement speech, Ron reminisced about the
great joy he had received being a high school science teacher and how that fateful first
year inspired him to transform his teaching style and pursue questions that engage stu-
dents in learning.
Final Thoughts: Your Legacy

In the preface, we began by contrasting the meaning and mechanics of inquiry. That same
notion may also be the best way to bring us full circle to close this chapter and end this
book.
As you embark on a teaching career, you are actually laying the foundation of your
legacy as a teacher. As with Mr. Baker, such a legacy is built over time from the actions
and interactions you have throughout your career. If you are new to the profession, you
may not yet fully appreciate how your values and beliefs about what constitutes good
teaching and learning will dictate how others will assess the impact you had on their
lives. Retirement may seem light years away. But when retirement comes and you look
back over a career of teaching, how will you judge yourself? How will others judge you?
For some teachers, their legacy will be marked by mediocrity. Others will leave behind a
legacy of passion for excellence; excellence that is exemplified by the students they
helped to become autonomous learners, able to think for themselves. It all begins
with you. You have the capability to influence adolescent minds and prepare the next
generation of scientifically literate citizens. It is my hope that you will choose to shape
your legacy through the skillful use of scientific inquiry and argumentation—affording
students the opportunity to engage in questioning, skepticism, and wonder. Teaching
high school science is an awesome responsibility. Take your responsibility seriously.
Teach with excitement and enjoyment.
Your destiny as an educator is yours to determine. You are the architect of your own
legacy. Just as you use inquiry and argumentation to challenge your students to critically
think for themselves, so too use it to challenge yourself to inquire within. Experiment.
Pursue your hunches. Trust your instincts. Oh, for the joy of inquiry!
Without challenging themselves professionally, teachers become content to recycle
too many old but comfortable lesson plans and turn a jaundiced eye to suggestions for
change, to stretch, to search for something more. The truly exceptional teachers in this
world are not satisfied to know a little about a lot of things—in other words, to be “jacks
of all trades and masters of none.” Instead, exemplary teachers choose to seek out the
tools and the ideas they believe help them move from being good to being great—becoming
the best teachers possible for their students. To find your passion in teaching, pause and
listen for the voice that resounds within you. Pursue a path of growth and development
guided by what you are truly passionate about.
As educators, we are not going to earn the accolades, attention, and the salary of a
major league baseball player, but we all, whether we are new to the field of education or
are veteran teachers, have experienced those special “Hallmark moments” of connection
with our students: the satisfaction of seeing a struggling scholar succeed, and the unex-
pected pleasure of a former student walking back into our lives to tell us how we made
a difference, how what and how we taught in the classroom helped him or her become
the adult he or she is today. These are the moments that remind us of why we do what
we do and provide the motivation to continue to strive for more rather than settling for
less—to remember that we can be masters of both meaning and mechanics.
At the end of the day, those kinds of moments justify the choice you made to ask
yourself what really matters and your wholehearted pursuit of the answer to that ques-
tion—your decision to challenge yourself to be more while asking your students to do the
same. So listen to your thoughts; they become your words. Hear your words; they become
your beliefs. Pay attention to your beliefs; they become your behaviors. Watch your
behaviors; they become your character. Mind your character; it becomes your legacy.
Choosing to become an inquiry teacher is a process about choosing a direction. It’s
about making deep-seated commitments and professional choices about the kind of
teacher you want to be and the kind of classroom you want to have. Last, remember this:
when you inspire students to imagine beyond their expectations, to seek more questions
than they will ever answer, and to persist when others concede, you are becoming an
inquiry-based teacher. Best wishes for your journey!

1. Attitudes and behaviors are tightly coupled. Our attitudes about teaching and
learning determine the behaviors we demonstrate in the classroom. Consider the
iceberg metaphor. Ninety percent of the iceberg is below the water level. Ten per-
cent is visible. The part of the iceberg below the water’s surface is like our values,
beliefs, and biases about how students learn. The visible portion of the iceberg
represents our observable behaviors in the science classroom. How do your beliefs
233
about how high school students learn science best influence the way you teach or
will teach in the years ahead?
2. Project into the future. Suppose you just fulfilled a 35-year teaching career and the
high school science department is throwing you a retirement party. What would
you like the main speaker to say about you? What will you do this year and in the
years ahead to shape your legacy as an exemplary science teacher?
3. Over the past 20 years, the national standards for science have been grounded in
five basic assumptions. As we unfold the new Framework (2012) and the Next
Generation Science Standards (1996), these same five assumptions again construct the
foundation for instructional reform. Discuss with a partner how the five assump-
tions play a role in the goal of developing nationwide scientific literacy, thus restor-
ing our ranking for science performance in comparison to other top-performing
countries such as Finland, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea.
a. The vision of science education described in the standards requires changes
throughout the entire system.
b. What students learn is greatly influenced by their prior knowledge about a sub-
ject, how they are taught, and the relationships they establish with their teachers.
c. The actions of teachers are deeply influenced by their perception of the goals for
science and their belief about how students learn.
d. Student understanding is actively constructed through individual and social
negotiation of core concepts and ideas.
e. Integrating science practices and themes into the core concepts contributes to
students’ understanding of the nature of science and how we come to know
what we know about scientific topics.
Resource A
Resources for
High School
Science Teachers
W hen you make a commitment to become an inquiry- and argument-based

teacher, you make a commitment to continue your intellectual and profes-
sional development. Professional growth often comes in the form of read-
ing; attending workshops, summer institutes, and seminars; taking graduate-level
courses; and collaborating and exchanging ideas through support groups and online
forums.
For some, this book may be the beginning of your exploration and journey into
inquiry and argumentation. For others, it may be one of many resources that helps you
construct an understanding of scientific inquiry and argumentation. Whichever case
applies, your reading and discussion into inquiry- and argument-based teaching and
learning should be ongoing.
The purpose of this section is to familiarize science teachers with some of the many
resources that are available to you on standards, assessment, constructivism, inquiry
investigations, and scientific argumentation.
Print Resources on Scientific

Inquiry and Argumentation
Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. (2009). Biology teacher’s handbook (4th ed.).
Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
According to the NSTA Web site, the 4th edition has been updated to reflect contem-
porary issues and current understandings of science and teaching. You will find this new
edition packed full of insights into effective teaching strategies, inquiry-based instruction,
course planning, and program selection. The handbook is designed to support you as you
build a culture of inquiry in your classroom.
234
RESOURCE A
235
Flick, L. B., & Lederman, N. G. (Eds.). (2006). Scientific inquiry and nature of science:
Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Provides historical and contemporary contexts for scientific inquiry. Addresses topics
in curriculum, assessment, teaching, and learning, as well as the role of the nature of sci-
ence in inquiry.
Gould, S. (1996). The mismeasure of man (revised and expanded ed.). New York, NY:
Norton.
In the first half of the 1800s, Dr. Samuel Morton used his vast collection of over 600
human skulls to determine the relationship between cranial size and race. By filling the
skulls with mustard seed and measuring the amount of seeds in a graduated cylinder,
Morton used the data to establish racial ranking. In 1977, Gould reanalyzed Morton’s data
and concluded that the measurements were a verification of Morton’s prior bias. The
book serves as a historical account of conflicting claims and evidence and can become the
basis for a demonstrated inquiry on craniology and scientific argumentation.
Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L., Staker, J., & Bintz, J. (2009). Negotiating science: The critical role
of argument in student inquiry. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
This book offers ways for teachers in grades 5–10 to foster critical-thinking skills
through inquiry, argumentation, and writing. Highly recommended.
Hoffer, W. (2009). Science as thinking: The constants and variables of inquiry teaching, grades
5–10. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
The author shows how building a teaching foundation ensures that all of your plan-
ning, lessons, and interactions spark students’ interests and support deep thinking about
science.
Lawson, A. (2010). Teaching inquiry science in middle and secondary schools. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
A college textbook that provides background readings on the nature of science,
higher-order thinking skills, constructivism, and inquiry.
Llewellyn, D. (2007). Inquire within: Implementing inquiry-based science standards in grades

3–8 (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
A companion book for Teaching High School Science Through Inquiry and Argumentation
that focuses on elementary and middle school grades. Inquire Within will complement this
high school book for institutes and seminars that have K−12 teachers as participants.
Llewellyn, D. (2011). Differentiated science inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

This book provides standards-based strategies for differentiating science-inquiry (DSI)
investigations to more effectively meet the needs of all students. DSI shows how teachers
can provide their students with choice, thereby increasing ownership and motivation.
Luft, J., Bell, R., & Gess-Newsome, J. (Eds.). (2008). Science as inquiry in the secondary set-
ting. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
According to the back cover, this book is “a compact, easy-to-understand orientation to
inquiry for both preservice and inservice science teachers. It’s ideal for guiding discussions,
fostering reflection and helping you enhance your own classroom practices.” Topics include
inquiry instruction, assessment, questioning skills, and the role of argumentation in science
classrooms.
Minstrell, J., & Van Zee, E. (Eds.). (2000). Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in sci-
ence. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
A collection of articles that will apply to both the novice and the experienced inquiry
science teacher. Divided into three parts: (1) Why inquiry? (2) What does inquiry look
like? and (3) What issues arise with inquiry learning and teaching?
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A
guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
A comprehensive guide for implementing inquiry in the science classroom. Excellent
reading to accompany to the National Science Education Standards.
Rhoton, J., & Shane, P. (Eds.), Teaching science in the 21st century. Arlington, VA: NSTA.
An excellent source for articles on innovative best practices, assessment, leading pro-
fessional development, professional learning communities, and current research on
brain-based teaching strategies in the science classroom. Serves as a backdrop for under-
standing and articulating the need for scientific inquiry and argumentation.
Seethaler, S. (2009). Lies, damned lies, and science: How to sort through the noise around global
warming, the latest health claims, and other scientific controversies. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT
Press/Pearson.
Discusses how science really works and progresses and why scientists sometimes
disagree. The author helps you to think more sensibly about everything from mad cow
disease to global warming and make better science-related decisions both in your
personal life and as a citizen. Interesting background reading for teachers fascinated by
science controversies.
Smithenry, D., & Gallagher-Bolos, J. (2009). Whole-class inquiry: Creating student-centered

science communities. Arlington, VA: NSTA.
A follow-up to their 2004 book Teaching Inquiry-Based Chemistry, Whole-Class
Inquiry explains how the authors created student-led scientific communities in a high
school chemistry classroom. Accompanying DVDs provide videos of their inquiry
lessons.
Print Resources on Inquiry- and

Argument-Based Investigations
Cothron, J., Giese, R., & Rezba, R. (2006). Students and research: Practical strategies for science
classrooms and competitions (4th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
An excellent resource for understanding the basic and advanced principles of experi-
mental design and data analysis. Topics include designing experiments, overcoming
design flaws, writing procedures, constructing tables and graphs, and writing reports.
The book’s many activities offer an enrichment of inquiry investigation skills. More
advanced data and statistical significance analysis comprise topics such as standard
deviation, treatment groups, t-tests, and chi-square.
RESOURCE A
237
Gallagher-Bolos, J., & Smithenry, D. (2004). Teaching inquiry-based chemistry. Portsmouth,

NH: Heinemann.
This book deals with inquiry as defined by the National Science Education Standards
and provides suggestions as to how to make the shift from a traditional to an inquiry-
based classroom.
Gooding, J., & Metz, W. (2006). Inquiry by design. Pittsburgh, PA: RoseDog Books.
A valuable collection of standards-based tasks written in a design brief format that
fosters the design, analysis, and solution of problems. Topics include chemistry, consumer
science, earth and environmental sciences, physics, forensics, life science, and scientific
reasoning. Most appropriate for introductory classes at grade 9 that use problem-solving
and guided-inquiry investigations.
Hanson, T., & Slesnick, I. (2006). Adventures in paleontology: 30 classroom fossil activities.
Provides activities for earth science (as well as all secondary school science teachers)
that can be adapted to foster inquiry and argumentation into the science curriculum.
Activities emphasize observing, inferring, and model building.
Lechtanski, V. (2000). Inquiry-based experiments in chemistry. Washington, DC: American

Chemical Society.
Contains 35 structured-inquiry experiments for high school chemistry students.
Includes teacher notes and sample lab reports for each experiment.
Sheilds, M. (2006). Biology investigations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Provides activities that serve as inquiry investigations or whole-class discussions.
Reproducible handouts are provided for topics on the cell, heredity, evolution, organism
behavior, and system organization.
Krasny, M., & the Environmental Inquiry Team. (2002). Invasion ecology: Cornell scientific
inquiry series. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Leads students into conducting investigations in plant ecology. Students learn how to
do research with simple and inexpensive bioassays by studying real-life invaders like
purple loosestrife. Includes a teacher guide and student edition. Companion to Assessing
Toxic Risk. Excellent biology and environmental science resource for grades 9–12.
Lechtanski, V. (2000). Inquiry-based experiments in chemistry. Washington, DC: American

Chemical Society.
Contains 35 high school chemistry experiments. Each experiment identifies the
“Experiment,” the “Teacher’s Notes,” and a “Sample Lab Report.” The teacher’s notes are
exceptionally useful in helping the teacher introduce the lab and provide common mis-
conceptions students have about the topic as well as procedural and calculation errors to
expect. Although the book is very useful, it may be difficult to find. Try several online
book companies, such as www.amazon.com.
McDermott, L. (1996). Physics by inquiry (Vols. 1 & 2). New York, NY: Wiley.
Includes laboratory-based modules that provide a step-by-step introduction to the
physical sciences. Applicable to preservice and practicing elementary and secondary
school teachers. The modules are designed to develop scientific reasoning in physics and
the process of inquiry.
Stephans, J. (2011). Targeting physical science misconceptions using the conceptual change model
(3rd ed.). St. Cloud, MN: Saiwood.
The purpose of this book is to introduce the Conceptual Change Model and describe
how students’ misconceptions play a major role in their learning. Using over 16 concepts
in physical science, the book suggests possible misconceptions students may hold for
each concept and provides activities to uncover and address those misconceptions. This
book is appropriate for introductory physical science courses at grade 9.
Trautmann, N., & the Environmental Inquiry Team. (2001). Assessing toxic risk: Cornell
scientific inquiry series. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Leads students into conducting investigations in toxicology. Students learn how to do
research with simple and inexpensive bioassays. Includes a teacher guide and student
edition. Excellent biology and environmental science resource for grades 9–12.
Trautmann, N., & the Environmental Inquiry Team. (2003). Decay and renewal: Cornell sci-
entific inquiry series. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Leads students into conducting investigations in natural recycling, composting, and
wastewater treatment. Students learn how to do research with simple and inexpensive
bioassays. Includes a teacher guide and student edition. Excellent biology and environ-
mental science resource for grades 9–12.
Trautmann, N., & Krasny, M. (1997). Composting in the classroom: Scientific inquiry for high
school students. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
A guide for grade 9–12 teachers and students interested in using composting for sci-
ence and multidisciplinary projects. Includes additional information on compost and
waste management.
Print Resources on Constructivism

Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experi-
ence, and school (Exp. ed.). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Provides research findings on how learning occurs and offers recommendations
about what teachers can do to facilitate student learning.
Brooks, J., & Brooks, M. (2001). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist class-
rooms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
This book is an excellent starting point for reading about constructivism and its appli-
cation to teaching strategies. Although the book applies to all content areas, science teach-
ers will find this book helpful in gaining a baseline understanding of constructivism. The
book is easy to read and is filled with practical suggestions for classroom practice.
Bybee, R. (Ed.). (2002). Learning science and the science of learning. Arlington, VA: NSTA
Press.
A comprehensive look at teaching and learning through a constructivist perspective.
Includes articles on curriculum design, assessment, and professional development.
RESOURCE A
239
Gagnon, G., & Collay, M. (2001). Designing for learning: Six elements in constructivist class-
rooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
The authors present a six-step Constructivist Learning Design (CDC) with a construc-
tivist perspective on how to structure student learning environments. Although not writ-
ten specifically for high school science teachers, educators at all levels and areas will
benefit from this book.
National Research Council. (2005). How students learn: Science in the classroom. Washington,
DC: National Academies Press.
A must-read text on the research concerning how students learn science and the
implications for constructivist classroom practice. Includes DVD for the NRC’s How
Students Learn: History, Mathematics, and Science in the Classroom. Document available
online as a free PDF document at www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11102.
Shapiro, A. (2000). Leadership for constructivist schools. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.

A down-to-earth guide with practical suggestions on how administrators and teach-
ers can work together to develop constructivist school climates.
Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (2000). How students (mis-)understand science and mathematics. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Sophisticated reading for teachers interested in students’ misconceptions. According
to NSTA, this book “gives you a detailed framework to explain and predict cognitive
behaviors. Then (the book) offers practical teaching suggestions for using the framework
in your own classroom.”
Print Resources on Science

Standards and Science Literacy
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
A compelling vision for science reform and achieving scientific literacy. Companion
report to Benchmarks for Science Literacy. Although now a bit dated, it served as a vehicle
for science curriculum reform for 20 years.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for scientific
literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Provides science educators with guidelines for improving science literacy. Recommends
what students should know and be able to do by the time they reach certain grade levels.
Although now a bit dated, it served as a vehicle for science curriculum reform for 20 years.
Banilower, E., Cohen, K., Pasley, J., & Weiss, I. (2010). Effective science instruction: What does
the research tell us? (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on
Instruction.
This booklet highlights five elements of effective instruction: motivation, eliciting
students’ prior knowledge, intellectual engagement with relevant phenomena, using evi-
dence to critique claims, and sensemaking. Contains sample lessons. An excellent
resource for both policymakers and practitioners. Available at www.centeroninstruction
.org/effective-science-instruction-what-does-research-tell-us-second-edition.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press.
This book outlines standards for educational reform from 1996 to the present. Includes
standards for science teaching, assessment, content, and program development.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K−12 science education: Practices, cross-
cutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
The latest document to set the foundation for the Next Generation Science Standards. A
must-read for all stakeholders involved in science curriculum reform over the next sev-
eral decades. Provides three distinct dimensions: scientific and engineering practices
(previously called inquiry), crosscutting concepts (themes that apply across all areas of
science), and disciplinary core ideas (content topics that provide tools for understanding
key concepts in science). Available as a free PDF document at www.nap.edu.
Print Resources on Assessment

Atkin, J., & Coffey, J. (Eds.). (2003). Everyday assessment in the science classroom. Arlington,
VA: NSTA Press.
A collection of 10 articles and essays on assessment techniques. Includes “how-to”
strategies for conducting assessments in science.
Doran, R., Chan, F., Tamir, P., & Lenhart, C. (2002). Science educator’s guide to laboratory
assessment. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Provides extensive background information connecting assessment and inquiry.
Includes sections on high-stakes assessment, alternative assessment formats, and sample
assessments for grades 9–12 in biology, chemistry, earth science, and physics.
Enger, S., & Yager, R. (2001). Assessing student understanding in science. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin.
Presents assessment of six domains of science, rubrics, and assessment examples for
grades 9−12.
Lantz, H. (2004). Rubrics for assessing student achievement in science grades K−12. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Offers over 100 ready-to-use analytic and holistic rubrics to assess and evaluate stu-
dent performance.
Mintzes, J., Wandersee, J., & Novak, J. (Eds.). (2000). Assessing science understanding: A
human constructivist approach. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Provides a look at science assessment through the eye of constructivist authors.
Articles include assessing science through concept maps, vee diagrams, and graphic orga-
nizers, using rubrics and portfolios.
National Research Council. (2001). Classroom assessment and the national science education
standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Excellent resource to accompany the National Science Education Standards.
Pellegrino, J., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (Eds.). (2001). Knowing what students know: The
science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
RESOURCE A
241
Presents several recommendations for rethinking the implications of assessment.

Excellent resource to accompany How Students Learn.
Print Resources on General Science Areas

Hartman, H., & Glasgow, N. (2002). Tips for the science teacher: Research-based strategies to
help students learn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Provides instructional tips for teachers to consider. Many of the tips refer to inquiry-
based and constructivist strategies. Very appropriate for the beginning high school sci-
ence teacher.
Youngson, R. (1998). Science blunders: A brief history of how wrong scientists can sometimes be.
New York, NY: Carroll & Graf.
An interesting history of the many scientific theories and models that have been dis-
proved. Includes “blunders” for earth, life, and physical sciences. Applies to the concep-
tual change theory and how scientists can make claims that later are refuted.
Multimedia Resources on
Scientific Inquiry and Argumentation
Schneps, M. (Producer), & the Science Media Group of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center
for Astrophysics. (1987). A private universe—Minds of our own [DVD]. Washington, DC:
Annenberg Learner.
According to Annenberg, “From its famous opening scene at a Harvard graduation,
this classic of educational research brings into sharp focus the dilemma facing all educa-
tors: Why don’t even the brightest students truly grasp basic science concepts? These two
historic, award-winning programs trace the problem with interviews with eloquent
Harvard graduates, professors, and Heather, a bright high school student who has some
strange ideas about the orbits of the planets. Equally fitting for education-methods
classes, teacher workshops, and presentations to the public, it is an essential resource for
any educational video collection.” Order online at www.learner.org.
Online Resources on Scientific

Inquiry and Argumentation
Annenberg/CPB at www.learner.org
Annenberg/CPB (Corporation for Public Broadcasting) is a premier Web site for
professional development resources and videos on inquiry-based science and mathemat-
ics. The Web site lists a schedule of a distance-learning video series. A key program of
interest includes “Teaching High School Science.” According to Annenberg, “The
Teaching High School Science library will help new and veteran science teachers integrate
national science standards and inquiry learning into their curricula. Showing science
classrooms around the country, the modules cover topics in life science, physical science,
earth and space science, and integrated science. They also show a range of teaching tech-
niques and student/teacher interaction.” The free video on demand includes “Thinking
Like Scientists,” where scientists in the field explain the concept of inquiry. In “Chemical
Reactions,” students in a 9th-grade science class formulate and explore their own ques-
tions about a chemical reaction. In “Investigating Crickets,” 9th-grade biology students
design and conduct experiments about crickets. In “Exploring Mars,” students in an 11th-
grade integrated-science class explore how the Mars landscape may have formed, and in
“The Physics of Optics,” an 11th- and 12th-grade physics class looks at light, lenses, and
the human eye. For more information see www.learner.org/resources/series126.html.
PhET Interactive Simulations at University of Colorado at Boulder at http://phet

.colorado.edu
According to the Web site, PhET provides fun, interactive, research-based simulations
of physical phenomena for free. Simulations animate what is invisible to the eye through
the use of graphics and intuitive controls such as click-and-drag manipulation and offer
measurement instruments, including rulers, stopwatches, voltmeters, and thermometers.
Simulations are available in biology, earth science, chemistry, and physics. Simulations
can be easily incorporated into inquiry- and argument-based investigations. Subscribe to
the PhET newsletter and keep abreast of its latest developments.
Eisenhower National Clearinghouse (ENC) at www.goenc.com

The ENC is a first-rate resource for educational reform in math and science. ENC’s
Web site includes K−12 curriculum resources, Web links, and professional develop
resources. For links to outstanding inquiry-based high school biology, chemistry, and
physics programs, go to www.goenc.com and search topics of interest. Also of interest
from ENC is “Foundation Science: A Comprehensive High School Curriculum” at http://
cse.edc.org/curriculum/foundationscience/default.asp.
http://hechingerreport.org/category/special_reports/science/
The Hechinger Report provides comprehensive, up-to-date information and articles on
education reform issues, including science.
Terrific Science at www.terrificscience.org

A wealth of resources for science teachers. Includes many suggested books and
inquiry-based lessons at its “freebie” site.
Wisconsin Fast Plants Program at www.fastplants.org

To speed along your botany investigations, consider using the Wisconsin Fast Plants
Program. Students can observe a plant life cycle, from seed to adult, in about 40 days. Site
includes instructions, suggested activities, and ordering information.
The Inquiry Learning Forum (ILF) through Indiana University at http://crlt.indiana.edu/

research/docs/ilf_flyer.pdf
The ILF through Indiana University is a resource for new and seasoned inquiry sci-
ence teachers. You will need to register and provide a password. After that, this Web site
will keep you engaged for months. Take time to visit several ILF classrooms where you
can engage in discussions and scan for classroom resources and lessons.
“Visiting a High School Inquiry Classroom: How to Prepare and Observe” at http://cse
.edc.org/products/pdfs/observerguide.pdf
This document, “Visiting a High School Inquiry Classroom: How to Prepare and
Observe,” is published by the Educational Development Center (EDC) in Newton,
Massachusetts. The guide, according to the EDC, is intended “to help observers of high
RESOURCE A
243
school classrooms recognize the dimensions of inquiry teaching underway in the class-
room. It is designed for administrators, professional development specialists, or mentors
in a position to support the efforts of teachers changing their practice.” If you are a high
school inquiry-based science teacher, a science department chair, or a teacher/leader,
place this document on your reading list.
The National Academies Press at www.nap.edu

The National Academies Press has many teacher resources pertaining to science
instruction and reform. The following documents are available online as free PDF ver-
sions. To view them go to www.nap.edu, select “Education” on the left column, and then
select “Math and Science Education.” Or go directly to any of the following documents:
•• National Science Education Standards at www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=4962

•• Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning
at www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=9596
•• Successful K−12 STEM Education: Identifying Effective Approaches in Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics at www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13158
•• A Framework for K−12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core
Ideas at www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165
•• America’s Lab Report: Investigation in High School Science at www.nap.edu/catalog
.php?record_id=11311
•• Exploring the Intersection of Science Education and 21st Century Skills: A Workshop
Summary at www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12771
•• How Students Learn: Science in the Classroom at www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_
id=11102
•• Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science at www.nap.edu/catalog
.php?record_id=5787
•• Science, Evolution, and Creationism at www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876
•• Selecting Instructional Materials: A Guide for K−12 Science at www.nap.edu/catalog
.php?record_id=9607
•• Learning and Understanding: Improving Advanced Study of Mathematics and Science in
U.S. High Schools: A Report of the Content Panel for Biology at www.nap.edu/catalog
U.S. High Schools: A Report of the Content Panel for Chemistry at www.nap.edu/
catalog.php?record_id=10364
U.S. High Schools: A Report of the Content Panel for Physics at www.nap.edu/catalog
•• Plus two K−8 resources that even apply to high school classrooms:
•• Ready, Set, Science! at www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11882
•• Taking Science to School at www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11625
Professional Organizations
State-Level Science Teachers Association
Each state has its own science teachers association to promote and inspire excellence
in science teaching. Readers are encouraged to become members of their state association.
If you are unfamiliar with your state’s organization, go to the Council of State Science
Supervisors at www.csss-science.org and select “Members” on the right side. The Web
site will take you to a map where you can select your state to contact the science supervi-
sor and obtain information on your state’s professional organization.
The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) at www.nsta.org

The NSTA is a professional organization for K−16 science teachers. Click on “High
School” and find resources and articles on inquiry-based science. The high school jour-
nal The Science Teacher contains many useful articles on standards, instruction, and
assessment. Since 2002, several issues of The Science Teacher have been devoted specifically
to inquiry-based instruction and assessment. Archived issues of The Science Teacher are
available at www.NSTA.org.
February 2002—“What is Inquiry?”—Vol. 69, No. 2

December 2002—“Inquiry dot Com”—Vol. 69, No. 9
April 2003—“Inquiry-Based Activities”—Vol. 70, No. 4
September 2003—“Engage Your Students”—Vol. 70, No. 6
December 2003—“Authentic Investigations”—Vol. 70, No. 9
January 2004—“Designing Inquiry Pathways”—Vol. 71, No. 1
April 2004—“Interpreting Evidence”—Vol. 71, No. 4
October 2005—“Inquiry in the Laboratory”—Vol. 72, No. 7
November 2010—“Inquiry Across the Science Disciplines”—Vol. 77. No. 8
In addition, NSTA has numerous position papers on a wide range of science-education

topics. For the position paper on inquiry see www.nsta.org/about/positions/inquiry
.aspx. If you are not a member of NSTA, you should strongly consider joining.
The National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) at www.nabt.org

The NABT is a professional organization for high school biology teachers. See many
biology activities by clicking “Free Teacher Resources” on the left side of the home page.
The National Association of Geoscience Teachers (NAGT) at www.nagt.org

According to the Web site, “NAGT works to foster improvement in the teaching of the
earth sciences at all levels of formal and informal instruction, to emphasize the cultural
significance of the earth sciences and to disseminate knowledge in this field to the general
public.” For inquiry-based activities, go to “teaching resources” and then click “inquiry
activities.”
The National Earth Science Teachers Association (NESTA) at www.nestanet.org

The NESTA is an educational organization whose purpose is the advancement, stimu-
lation, extension, improvement, and coordination of earth science education at all educa-
tional levels. Go to “Educational Resources” and click “Classroom Activities.”
RESOURCE A
245
American Chemical Society (ACS) at www.acs.org

The ACS provides a wide range of resources for chemistry educators. ACS has an
excellent professional magazine for high school teachers called ChemMatters. To access the
magazine go to “Education,” then “Educational Resources,” and then click “High
School.” For information on the Journal of Chemical Education, click the “Publications” sec-
tion and then click “ACS Journals A−Z” and scroll down to Journal of Chemical Education.
The American Association of Physics Teacher (AAPT) at www.aapt.org

The AAPT was established in 1930 with the fundamental goal of ensuring the “dis-
semination of knowledge of physics, particularly by way of teaching.” The AAPT cur-
rently has over 11,000 members in 30 countries around the world. The Physics Teacher,
AAPT’s magazine, publishes papers on physics research, the history and philosophy
of physics, applied physics, curriculum developments, pedagogy, and instructional lab
equipment, as well as book reviews.
Resource B
Bottle Handout
Copyright © 2013 by Corwin. All rights reserved. Reprinted from Teaching High School Science Through Inquiry and
Argumentation, Second Edition, by Douglas Llewellyn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, www.corwin.com.
246
References
Abraham, M. (1997). The learning cycle approach to science instruction (Monograph #9701). Norman,
OK: National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. Washington,
DC: Author.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy.
Washington, DC: Author.
Atkin, J. M., & Karplus, R. (1962). Discovery or invention? The Science Teacher, 29(2), 121–143.
Audet, R., & Jordan, L. (2003). Standards in the classroom: An implementation guide for teachers of
science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Ausubel, D. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Baird, J., Fensham, P., Gunstone, R., & White, R. (1989, March). A study of the importance of reflection
for improving science teaching and learning. Paper presented at the National Association for
Research in Science Teaching annual conference, San Francisco, CA.
Banilower, E., Cohen, K., Pasley, J., & Weiss, I. (2010). Effective science instruction: What does research
tell us? (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
Beisenherz, P., & Dantonio, M. (1996). Using the learning cycle to teach physical science. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. (2004). Biology: A human approach. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/
Hunt.
Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. (2009). The biology teacher’s handbook (4th ed.). Arlington, VA:
NSTA Press.
Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1999). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill-Prentice Hall.
Burnett, R. (1999). The pillbug project: A guide to investigation. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Bybee, R. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Colburn, A. (1996). Invited paper. The Science Teacher, 63(1), 10.
Colburn, A., & Clough, M. (1997). Implementing the learning cycle. The Science Teacher, 64(5),
30–33.
Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (n.d.). Describing 16 habits of mind. Retrieved from http://www.institute
forhabitsofmind.com/resources/pdf/16HOM.pdf
Costenson, K., & Lawson, A. (1986). Why isn’t inquiry used in more classrooms? The American
Biology Teacher, 48(3), 150–158.
Council of Chief of State School Officers & National Governors Association. (2010). Common core
state standards for English/language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical
subjects. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards
.pdf
DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings
and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6),
582–601.
de Saint-Exupery, A. (1943). The little prince. New York, NY: Reynal & Hitchcock.
Dewey, J. (1900). The school and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
247
Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Doran, R., Chan, F., Tamir, P., & Lenhardt, C. (2002). Science educator’s guide to laboratory assessment.
Driscoll, M. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Duit, R., & Treagust, D. (1995). Students’ conceptions and constructivist teaching approaches. In
B. J. Fraser & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Improving science education (pp. 46−69). Chicago, IL: National
Society for the Study of Education.
Edmondson, K. (2000). Assessing science understanding through concept maps. In J. Mintzes,
J. Wandersee, & J. Novak (Eds.), Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view
(pp. 15–40). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Eyster, L. (2010). Encouraging creativity in the science lab. The Science Teacher, 77(6), 32–35.
Flick, L. B., & Lederman, N. G. (Eds.). (2006). Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for
teaching, learning, and teacher education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Galus, P. (2000). Seeds for thought. The Science Teacher, 67(5), 28–31.
Galus, P. (2003). Diet or regular? A common cookbook demonstration about density initiates a
student inquiry investigation. The Science Teacher, 70(4), 45–47.
Gibran, K. (1923). The prophet. New York, NY: Alfred Knopf.
Glase, J., & Palmer, J. (1993). Isopod orientation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Institute for Biology Teachers,
Cornell University.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the power of emotional
intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
Graff, G., & Birkenstein, C. (2010). They say/I say: The moves that matter in academic writing (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
Haberman, M. (1991). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(4),
290–294.
Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L., Staker, J., & Bintz, J. (2009). Negotiating science: The critical role of argu-
ment in science inquiry. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Hermann, R., & Miranda, R. (2010). A template for open inquiry. The Science Teacher, 77(8), 26–30.
Hester, J. (1994). Teaching for thinking. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
Huxley, T. (1899). Science and education. New York, NY: Appleton.
Ingram, M., & Kelley, A. (2003). Bottle biology (2nd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Johnson, S. (1998). Who moved my cheese? New York, NY: Putnam.
Kotter, J., & Rathgeber, H. (2005). Our iceberg is melting. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Kowalski, T., Weaver, R., & Henson, K. (1990). Case studies on teaching. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Krathwohl, D. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.
Lawson, A. (2010). Teaching inquiry science in middle and secondary schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lawson, A., Abraham, M., & Renner, J. (1989). A theory of instruction: Using the learning cycle to teach
science concepts and thinking skills (Monograph #1). Cincinnati, OH: National Association for
Research in Science Teaching.
Llewellyn, D. (2007). Inquire within: Implementing inquiry-based science standard in grades 3–8 (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Llewellyn, D. (2009). Facilitator’s guide to inquire within (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Llewellyn, D. (2011). Differentiated science inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Llewellyn, D., & Rajesh, H. (2011). Fostering argumentation skills: Doing what real scientists really
do. Science Scope, 35(1), 22–28.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K., Mundry, S., Love, N., & Hewson, P. (2010). Designing professional
development for teachers of science and mathematics (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Marek, E., & Cavallo, A. (1997). The learning cycle. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Marshall, J., Horton, R., & White, C. (2009). EQUIPping teachers: A protocol to guide and improve
inquiry-based instruction. The Science Teacher, 76(4), 46–53.
REFERENCES
249
Martinello, M., & Cook, G. (2000). Interdisciplinary inquiry in teaching and learning (2nd ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Marzano, R. (1992). A different kind of classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R., & Kendall, J. (2007). The new taxonomy of educational objectives (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin.
McComas, W. (2005). Laboratory instruction in the service of science teaching and learning. The
Science Teacher, 72(7), 24–29.
Michaels, S., Shouse, A., & Schweingruber, H. (2008). Ready, set, science!: Putting research to work in
K–8 science classrooms. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Mikulka, T. (2000). Isopod inquiry. The Science Teacher, 67(9), 20–22.
Minner, D., Levy, A., & Century, J. (2009). Inquiry-based science instruction: What is it and does it
matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 47(4), 474–496.
Myers, S., Cushman, S., & Youngman, J. (2011). Finger Lakes regional stream monitoring network
manual. Geneva, NY: Finger Lakes Institute at Hobart & William Smith Colleges.
Nagel, G. (1994). The tao of teaching. New York, NY: Plume.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for
educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Commission on Mathematics and Science. (2000). Before it’s too late: A report to the nation
from the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st century. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
National Research Council. (1998). Teaching about evolution and the nature of science. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2000a). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for
teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2000b). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Exp. ed.).
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2001a). Educating teachers of science, mathematics, and technology: New
practices for a new millennium. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2001b). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational
assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2001c). Classroom assessment and the national science education standards.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2006). America’s lab report: Investigations in high school science (S. R.
Singer, M. L. Hilton, & H. A. Schweingruber, Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K−12 science education: Practices, crosscutting
concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
Nolan, T. (1991). Self-questioning and prediction: Combining metacognitive strategies. Journal of
Reading, 35(2), 132–137.
Norton, M., & Lester, P. (1998). K−12 case studies for school administrators: Problems, issues, and
resources. New York, NY: Garland.
Novak, J. (1990). Concept maps and Vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools to facilitate meaning-
ful learning. Instructional Science, 19(1), 29–52.
Novak, J. (1998). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools
and corporations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Novak, J., & Gowin, D. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Osborne, J. (2009/2010). An argument for arguments in science classes. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(4),
62−65.
O’Sullivan, C., & Weiss, A. (1999). Student work and teacher practices in science: A report of what stu-
dents know and can do. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Palmer, P. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Piaget, J. (1970). The science of education and the psychology of the child. New York, NY: Orion Press.
Plankis, B., Vowell, J., & Ramsey, J. (2011). Generating discourse with cookie and doughnut inves-
tigations. Science Scope, 35(1), 38–41.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific
conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.
Pratt, H. (2012). The reader’s guide to a framework for K−12 science education. Arlington, VA: NSTA
Press.
Reagan, T., Case, C., & Brubacher, J. (2000). Becoming a reflective educator: How to build a culture of
inquiry in the schools (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Romey, W. (1968). Inquiry techniques for teaching science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ross, D., Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2009). The art of argumentation. Science and Children, 47(3), 28–31.
Rowe, M. B. (1974). Wait-time and rewards as instructional variables. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 11(2), 263–279.
Rowe, M. B. (1987). Using wait time to stimulate inquiry. In W. W. Wilen (Ed.), Questions, question-
ing techniques, and effective teaching (pp. 95–106). Washington, DC: National Education
Association.
Sagan, C. (1996). The demon-haunted world. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.
Sampson, V. (2004). The science management observation protocol. The Science Teacher, 71(10),
30–33.
Sampson, V., & Gleim, L. (2009). Argument-driven inquiry to promote the understanding of the
important concepts and practices in biology. The American Biology Teacher, 71(8), 465−472.
Sampson, V., & Grooms, J. (2009). Teacher’s toolkit: Promoting and supporting scientific argumen-
tation in the classroom—The evaluate-alternatives instructional model. Science Scope, 33(1),
66–73.
Sampson, V., & Grooms, J. (2010). Generate and argument: An instructional model. The Science
Teacher, 77(5), 32−37.
Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. (2009). Argument-driven inquiry. The Science Teacher, 76(8),
42−47.
Shiland, T. (1999). Constructivism: The implications for laboratory work. Journal of Chemical
Education, 76(1), 107–109.
Southerland, S., Smith, M., & Cummins, C. (2002). “What do you mean by that?”: Using structured
interviews to assess science understanding. In J. Mintzes, J. Wandersee, & J. Novak (Eds.),
Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view (pp. 71–93). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Stevens, D. (1991). Earth science final exam: A new approach. In G. Kulm & S. Malcom (Eds.),
Science assessment in the service of reform (pp. 359–361). Washington, DC: American Association
for the Advancement of Science.
Sutman, F. X. (2001). Mathematics and science literacy for all Americans. ENC Focus, 8(3), 20–23.
Trefil, J. (2003). Two modest proposals concerning scientific literacy. In S. Marshall, J. Scheppler, &
M. Palmisano (Eds.), Scientific literacy for the twenty-first century (pp. 150–160). Amherst, NY:
Prometheus Books.
Tuckman, B. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384−399.
University of the State of New York. (2005, January). Regents High School examination: Physical set-
ting earth science: Answer booklet. Retrieved from http://www.nysedregents.org/EarthScience/
Archive/20050126answerbooklet.pdf
Van Scotter, P., & Pinkerton, K. (2008). Assessing science as inquiry in the classroom. In J. Luft,
R. Bell, & J. Gess-Newsome (Eds.), Science as inquiry in the secondary setting (pp. 107–120).
REFERENCES
251
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language (E. Hanfmann & G. Voker, Trans.). Cambridge: MIT
Press. (Original work published 1934)
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Boston, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1979). Consciousness as a problem in the psychology of behavior. Soviet Psychology,
18(1), 67–115.
Walsh, J., & Sattes, B. (2005). Quality questioning: Research-based practice to engage every learner.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Windschitl, M. (1999). The challenges of sustaining a constructivist classroom culture. Phi Delta
Kappan, 70(10), 751–755.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Young, W. P. (2007). The shack. Los Angeles, CA: Windblown Media.
Youngson, R. (1998). Scientific blunders: A brief history of how wrong scientists can sometimes be. New
York, NY: Carroll & Graf.
Index
AAAS (American Association for the Advancement classroom management, 157–158

of Science), 2–3, 9–10, 147, 194 curriculum alignment and, 191–192
ABCs (attitudes, behaviors, and competencies), and design for, 193–194
inquiry-based teachers, 219–221 formative and summative assessment tools and,
Abraham, M., 83 192–193
Action-oriented tasks, and time management, multiple assessments and, 195
149–150 questions for reflection and discussion and, 212
Alternative (authentic) assessment. See Assessment; Seven Segments of Scientific Investigation
Authentic (alternative) assessment and, 199
American Association for the Advancement of test items choices and, 194–195
Science (AAAS), 2–3, 9–10, 147, 194 transitions to modifications in, 205–206
American Biology Teacher (journal), 39, 83, 147 Atkin, J. M, 83
America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Atmosphere in classrooms, and classroom
Science (NRC), 23, 125, 141–142 management, 155–157
Anxieties, over assessment, 190–191 Attitudes, behaviors, and competencies (ABCs),
Argumentation. See also Inquiry; Resources for and inquiry-based teachers, 219–221
inquiry and argumentation; Scaffolding Audet, R., 192
inquiry and argumentation; Science Authentic (alternative) assessment. See also
CCSS and, 23–26 Assessment
classroom as courtroom and, 37 capstone projects and, 205
description of, 19–20 description of, 195
flaws in reasoning and, 28–29 monitoring charts, and authentic assessment,
fossil footprints activity and, 30 199–201
literacy in science and technical subjects and, monitoring charts and, 199–201
24–25 performance tasks, and authentic assessment, 196
magic glue activity and, 30–31 performance tasks and, 196
making a case for, 21–22 rubrics or scoring guides for, 196–197
media influence and, 18–19 self-assessment and, 202–205
mystery box activity and, 29–30 structured interviews and, 201–202
NRC and, 23, 26–28 transcending questions and, 198–199
NSES and, 22–23
NSTA and, 28 Behaviorism, compared with constructivism, 66
parts of an argument and, 20–21 Beisenherz, P., 83
questions for reflection and discussion and, Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS), 2, 9, 147
39–40 Bintz, J., 20
realistic view of scientists’ work and, 37–38 Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS), 83–84
reasoning types and, 28 Biology case study, 66–68
sponge eggs hatching activity and, 32–33 Bloom’s Taxonomy, 166–169, 177, 185. See also
Armadillidium vulgare (pillbugs) or isopods case Questioning skills development, for teachers
study, 42–48 Bottle ecosystems case study, 114–119, 246
Assessment. See also Authentic (alternative) Brainstorming, 50–51
assessment case studies and, 50–51
anxieties over assessment and, 190–191 centripetal force measurement and assessment
centripetal force measurement and assessment case study and, 208–210
case study and, 206–212 failures during, 51
252
INDEX
253
Bransford, J., 151 teachers’ ABCs and, 219–221

Brooks, J. G., 68, 219 teaching career case study and, 228–231
Brooks, M. G., 68, 219 traditional classroom environment and, 215–216
Brown, A., 151 Classroom management. See also Time management
Brubacher, J., 214 assessment and monitoring strategies, 157–158
BSCS (Biological Sciences Curriculum Study), atmosphere in classrooms and, 155–157
83–84 challenges to inquiry-based teaching and,
Bybee, R., 83 147–148
implementation curve and, 146–147
Capstone projects, and authentic assessment, 205 investigation of contour lines case study and,
Case, C., 214 158–162
Case studies. See also Argumentation; Inquiry lockstep approach avoidance and, 154–155
biology case study and, 66–68 questions for reflection and discussion and,
bottle ecosystems case study and mechanics of 162–163
inquiry, 114–119, 246 Clough, M., 83
brainstorming and, 50–51 Cocking, R., 151
centripetal force measurement and assessment Colburn, A., 83, 127
case study and, 206–212 Common Core State Standards (CCSS), 23–26
constructivist learning model and, 66–68, 91–99 Concept maps, and time management, 151–153
description of, 41–42 Conceptual change theory, and constructivist
FLRSMN case study and mechanics of inquiry, learning model, 81–83
119–123 Conceptual image, of teachers and teaching, 53–55
hydrate laboratory case study and laboratory Constructivism. See also Constructivist learning
experiments and, 142–144 model
inquiry-based teachers and teaching and, 62–64 behaviorism compared with, 66
Inquiry Cycle and, 48–49 contemporary, 75–76
investigation of contour lines case study and description of, 66
classroom management and, 158–162 Dewey, J. and, 70
isopods case study and, 42–48 historical perspective of, 70–75
professional development plan design case objectivism compared with, 66
study, and teachers’ questioning skills Piaget, J. and, 71–73
development, 184–187 resources in print on, 238–239
questions for reflection and discussion and, Vygotsky, L. W. and, 74–75
51–52 Constructivist learning model, 66–68, 91–99. See
teaching career case study and, 228–231 also Constructivism
yeast case study and, 91–99 biology case study and, 66–68
Cavallo, A., 83 challenges to inquiry-based teaching and, 88–90
CCSS (Common Core State Standards), 23–26 conceptual change theory and, 81–83
Centripetal force measurement, 206–212 description of, 65
Challenges to inquiry-based teaching 5E Learning Cycle and, 72–73, 83–88, 91–99, 130,
classroom management and, 147–148 142–143, 158
constructivist learning model and, 88–90 language and, 83
Chudowsky, N., 151–152 learning process for adolescents and, 77–78
Classroom as courtroom, and argumentation, 37 metacognition and, 76–77
Classroom culture of inquiry and argumentation. misconceptions by students and, 77–81
See also Constructivist learning model preconceptions by students and, 77–81
constructivist learning model and, 90 questions for reflection and discussion and, 99
description of, 1, 213–214 traditional versus, 66–70
inquiry-based classroom environment and, 216 vision of, 90–91
legacy of teachers and, 231–232 yeast case study and, 91–99
questions for reflection and discussion and, Cook, G., 17
232–233 Core concepts focus, and time management, 150
reculturing classroom norms and relationships Costenson, K., 147
and, 222–228 Curriculum alignment, and assessment, 191–192
Seven Segments of Scientific Investigation and,
222–223, 225 Daily rules and routines, and time
students in inquiry-based classroom and, management, 150
216–219 Dantonio, M., 83
Data tables and graphs deletion, and laboratory hydrate laboratory case study and, 142
experiments, 131 inquiry and, 4, 14
Demonstration of inquiry, and mechanics of inquiry-based teaching and, 219, 233
inquiry, 102 isopods case study and, 42
Density laboratory experiences and, 142
laboratory demonstrations and, 135–136 yeast case study and constructivist lesson format
misconceptions about, 133–134 and, 91–99
Density demonstrations Franklin, B., 148
Coca-Cola/Diet Coke demonstration and, 136 Frey, N., 19
golf ball in graduated cylinder demonstration
and, 135–136 Galus, P., 131, 136
ice in unknown liquid demonstration and, 135 General science areas, and print resources, 241. See
Designs, for assessment, 193–194 also Science
Dewey, J., 70 Gertzog, W. A., 82
Differentiated inquiry, and mechanics of inquiry, Gibran, K., 99
112–114 Glaser, R., 151–152
Directions for tasks, and time management, “Going further” addition, and laboratory
150–151 experiments, 132
Discrepant events, and mechanics of inquiry, Grooms, J., 29, 39–40
102–103 Group work, by students, 153, 218
Driscoll, M., 71–72, 82 Guided inquiry. See also Inquiry-based teachers and
Duit, R., 78 teaching; Mechanics of inquiry
laboratory experiments and, 136–139
Einstein, A., 190 student inquiry and, 107–112
Electronic Quality of Inquiry Protocol (EQUIP), teacher-initiated inquiry and, 105–106
61, 157
EQUIP (Electronic Quality of Inquiry Protocol), Haberman, M., 155
61, 157 Habits of mind, and inquiry, 2–3
Essential or starter questions, and time Hand, B., 20
management, 149 Hester, J., 2, 72
Exploratory questions, and teachers’ questioning Hewson, P. W., 82, 185
skills development, 179–184 Horton, R., 61, 157
Expository questions, and teachers’ questioning Human qualities, and inquiry, 9–10
skills development, 169 Huxley, T., 83, 124
Hydrate laboratory case study, 142–144
Finger Lakes Regional Stream Monitoring Network
(FLRSMN) case study, 119–123 Implementation curve, and classroom
Fisher, D., 19 management, 146–147
5E Learning Cycle, 72–73, 83–88, 91–99, 130, Inhelder, D., 71–72
142–143, 158 Inquiry. See also Argumentation; Case studies;
Flick, L. B., 5 Classroom culture of inquiry and
FLRSMN (Finger Lakes Regional Stream argumentation; Guided inquiry; Mechanics of
Monitoring Network) case study, 119–123 inquiry; Resources for inquiry and
Formative and summative assessment tools, argumentation; Scaffolding inquiry and
192–193 argumentation; Science
Fossil footprints activity, and scaffolding AAAS and, 2–3, 9–10, 13
argumentation, 30 classroom culture of, 1
Four levels of instruction, and mechanics of definition of, 15–16
inquiry, 101 description of “what is” and “what is not,” 14–15
Four levels of instruction or Invitation to Inquiry, habits of mind and, 2–3
101, 106–107, 111–112 human qualities and, 9–10
Framework for K−12 Science Education, A (NRC) National Academy of Science and, 13
argumentation and, 23, 26–28 NRC on, 3–5, 9
bottle ecosystem case study and, 115 NSF and, 10, 13
centripetal force measurement and assessment NSTA and, 13
case study and, 206 pretzel theory and, 9
exploratory questions and, 147 questions for reflection and discussion about, 16–17
FLRSMN case study and, 119 resources in print on, 234–238
INDEX
255
Seven Segments of Scientific Investigation and, debates about, 141–142

6–9, 127, 179–183, 199, 222–223, 225 density demonstrations and, 135–136
ten beliefs and rebuttals about, 10–14 density misconceptions and, 133–134
three-pronged meaning of, 5–6 description of, 124–125
types and designations of, 1 “going further” addition and, 132
Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards guided inquiry and, 136–139
Generation Science Standard (NRC), 4 hydrate laboratory case study and, 142–144
Inquiry-based teachers and teaching. See also materials revisions and, 130
Assessment; Case studies; Classroom culture placement of laboratory activity at beginning of
of inquiry and argumentation; Classroom inquiry and, 129–130
management; Constructivism; Constructivist prelaboratory assessments and, 128
learning model; Inquiry; Laboratory procedural errors provided in inquiry and, 131
experiments; Mechanics of inquiry; procedure revisions and, 130–131
Questioning skills development, for teachers; questions for reflection and discussion and,
Scaffolding inquiry and argumentation 144–145
ABCs and, 219–221 questions revisions and, 130
case study and, 62–64 results section redesign and, 131–132
challenges for, 88–90, 147–148 safety rules and guidelines creation and, 130
conceptual image of teachers and teaching and, scaffolding argumentation and, 134–135
53–55 self-directed inquiry and, 139–140
description of, 53 Seven Segments of Scientific Investigation
instructional pie evaluation and, 57–59 and, 127
journals for, 39, 83, 147, 221 structured inquiry and, 136
legacy of, 231–232 tradition laboratory modifications and, 125–128,
legacy of teachers and, 231–232 132–133
mediocrity and, 64 Language, and constructivist learning model, 83
myths and misconceptions about, 57 Lao-tzu, 55
non-inquiry teachers arguments and, 56–57 Lawson, A., 29, 83, 147
professional organizations and, 243–245 Learning process for adolescents
progress and transition for, 61–62 constructivist learning model and, 77–78
questions for reflection and discussion and, 64 description of, 77–78
resources for, 234–245 preconceptions or prior knowledge and, 77–78
self-directed learning and, 55–56 Lederman, N. G., 5
steps in becoming, 60–61 Lesson plans, and time management, 150
teaching career case study and, 228–231 Life Sciences Learning Center (LSLC), 92, 97
vision statements and, 62–64 Limits on answering questions by teachers, and
Inquiry Cycle, 48–49 teachers’ questioning skills development,
Inquiry Synthesis Project, funded by NSF, 10 175–176
Instructional pie evaluation, 57–59 Literacy standards in science and technical subjects,
Interruptions in classroom limits, and time 24–25, 239–240
management, 154 Llewellyn, D., 21, 33, 112, 157
Investigation of contour lines case study, 158–162 Locke, J., 66
Invitation to Inquiry, and mechanics of inquiry, 101, Lockstep approach avoidance, and classroom
106–107, 111–112 management, 154–155
Isopods or pillbugs (Armadillidium vulgare) Loucks-Horsley, S., 185
case study, 42–48 Love, N., 185
LSLC (Life Sciences Learning Center), 92, 97
Johnson, S., 60–61
Jordan, L., 192 Magic glue activity, and scaffolding argumentation,
Journals, for inquiry-based teachers and teaching, 30–31
39, 83, 147, 221 Marek, E., 83
Marshall, J., 61, 157
Karplus, R., 83 Martinello, M., 17
Kendall, J., 169 Marzano, R., 2, 169
Kotter, J., 60–61 Materials revisions, and laboratory
experiments, 130
Laboratory experiments McComas, W., 114
data tables and graphs deletion and, 131 McTighe, J., 193
Mechanics of inquiry constructivist learning model and, 90

bottle ecosystems case study and, 114–119, 246 inquiry and, 4–5, 12, 13, 147, 233
demonstrated inquiry and, 102 inquiry-based teachers and, 219
description of, 100–101 laboratory experiences and, 142
differentiated inquiry and, 112–114 Non-inquiry teachers arguments, and inquiry-
discrepant events and, 102–103 based teachers and teaching, 56–57
FLRSMN case study and, 119–123 Norton-Meier, L., 20
four levels of instruction or Invitation to Inquiry Novak, J., 151
and, 101 NRC (National Research Council). See Framework
guidance for student inquiry and, 107–112 for K−12 Science Education, A (NRC); National
guided inquiry and, 105–106 Research Council (NRC)
questions for reflection and discussion and, 123 NSF (National Science Foundation), 10, 13
self-directed or student-initiated inquiry and, NSTA (National Science Teachers Association), 13, 28
106–107
structured inquiry and, 103–105 Objectivism, compared with constructivism, 66
Media influence, and argumentation, 18–19 O’Sullivan, C., 127
Mediocrity, and inquiry-based teachers and
teaching, 64 Pellegrino, J., 151–152
Metacognition, and constructivist learning model, Philosophy for inquiry. See Constructivist learning
76–77 model
Michaels, S., 28, 165 Piaget, J., 71–73, 81
Misconceptions. See also Preconceptions by Pillbugs (Armadillidium vulgare) or isopods case
students study, 42–48
density and, 133–134 Pinkerton, K., 212
inquiry-based teaching and, 57 Posner, G. J., 82
students and, 77–81, 133–134 Praise and positive reinforcement effectiveness,
Multiple assessments, 195 and teachers’ questioning skills
Mundry, S., 185 development, 176
Mystery box activity, and scaffolding Preconceptions by students, 77–81. See also
argumentation, 29–30 Misconceptions
Myths, about inquiry-based teachers and Prelaboratory assessments, 128, 206–208. See also
teaching, 57 Laboratory experiments
Pretzel theory, and inquiry, 9
Nagel, G., 148 Procedural errors provided in inquiry, and
National Academy of Science, 13 laboratory experiments, 131
National Research Council (NRC). See also Procedure revisions, and laboratory experiments,
Framework for K−12 Science Education, A (NRC) 130–131
argumentation and, 23, 26–28 Professional development plan design case study,
assessment and, 190, 193–195, 205 184–187
constructivist classroom culture strategies and, 90 Professional organizations, 243–245
exploratory questions and, 179, 184 Purpose of questions, and teachers’ questioning
inquiry and, 3–5, 9 skills development, 165
Inquiry and the National Science Education
Standards Generation Science Standard and, 4 Questioning skills development, for teachers
laboratory experiences and, 125–126, 141–142 Bloom’s Taxonomy and, 166–169, 177, 185
metacognition and, 76 description of, 164–165
NSES and, 3–4, 14, 22–23, 147, 217–218, 219 exploratory questions, 179–184
preconceptions and by students and, 66 expository questions and, 169
questioning skills development for teachers limits on answering questions and, 175–176
AND, 164 praise and positive reinforcement effectiveness
National Science Education Standards or NSES (NRC), and, 176
3–4, 14, 22–23, 147, 217–218, 219. See also professional development plan design case study
National Research Council (NRC) and, 184–187
National Science Foundation (NSF), 10, 13 purpose of questions and, 165
National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), 13, 28 quality questions as model for quality thinking
Next Generation Science Standards or NGSS (NRC) and, 169–170
argumentation and, 21, 23, 26–28, 233 questions for reflection and discussion and,
classroom culture of inquiry and, 90, 233 187–189
INDEX
257
recalibration of skills and, 178–179 resources in print and, 236–238, 241

Seven Segments of Scientific Investigation and, SMOP and, 157
179–183 standards for literacy in, 24–25, 239–240
techniques for questioning and, 170–175 STEM and, 2, 125, 184
tips and suggestions for, 176–178 students’ interest in, 218–219
Wait-Time Monitoring Chart and, 189 Science, technology, engineering and mathematics
Questions, and authentic assessment, 198–199 (STEM), 2, 125, 184
Questions for reflection, 51–52 Science Management Observation Protocol
Questions revisions, and laboratory experiments, 130 (SMOP), 157
Science News (journal), 175
Rajesh, H., 21, 33 Science Teacher, The (journal), 39
Rathgeber, H., 60–61 Scientific American (journal), 67, 175
Reading standards for literacy in science technical Scientific argumentation. See Argumentation
subjects, 24 Scientific inquiry. See Inquiry
Reagan, T., 214 Scientists’ work, realistic view of, 37–38
Realistic view, of scientists’ work, 37–38 Scoring guides, for authentic assessment, 196–197
Reasoning types, and argumentation, 28 Self-assessment , and authentic assessment,
Recalibration of skills, and teachers’ questioning 202–205
skills development, 178–179 Self-directed inquiry. See also Students
Reculturing classroom norms and relationships, inquiry-based teaching and, 55–56
222–228. See also Classroom culture of inquiry laboratory experiments and, 139–140
and argumentation mechanics of inquiry and, 106–107
Renner, J., 83 Seven Segments of Scientific Investigation, 6–9, 127,
Resources for inquiry and argumentation 179–183, 199, 222–223, 225. See also Inquiry;
general science areas print resources and, 241 Science
inquiry-based teachers and teaching resources Shiland, T., 127
and, 234–245 Shouse, A., 28, 165
investigations in science and, 236–238 SMOP (Science Management Observation
literacy in science and technical subjects print Protocol), 157
resources and, 239–240 Sponge eggs hatching activity, and scaffolding
multimedia, 241 argumentation, 32–33
online, 241–243 Staker, J., 20
science print resources and, 236–241 Standards for literacy in science and technical
Results section redesign, and laboratory subjects, 24–25, 239–240
experiments, 131–132 Starter or essential questions, and time
Romey, W., 230 management, 149
Ross, D., 19 STEM (science, technology, engineering and
Routines and daily rules, and time management, 150 mathematics), 2, 125, 184
Rowe, M. B., 173 Stevens, D., 196
Rubrics, for authentic assessment, 196–197 Stiles, K., 185
Strike, K. A., 82
Safety rules and guidelines creation, and laboratory Structured inquiry
experiments, 130 laboratory experiments and, 136
Sampson, V., 29, 39–40, 157 mechanics of inquiry and, 103–105
Sattes, B., 145 Structured interviews, and authentic assessment,
Scaffolding inquiry and argumentation. See also 201–202
Inquiry-based teachers and teaching Student comprehension, and time management,
description of, 29–37 149, 150–151
fossil footprints activity and, 30 Students. See also Self-directed inquiry
laboratory experiments and, 134–135 classroom culture of inquiry and, 216–219
magic glue activity and, 30–31 group work by, 153, 218
mystery box activity and, 29–30 guidance for inquiry by, 107–112
sponge eggs hatching activity and, 32–33 higher-level thinking skills utilization by, 218
verbal prompts during tasks and, 33, 37 inquiry-based classrooms and, 216–219
Schweingruber, H., 28, 165 misconceptions by, 77–81, 133–134
Science. See also Argumentation; Inquiry preconceptions by, 77–81
general areas science print resources and, 241 researchers as description for, 217–218
professional organizations and, 243–245 science as interesting for, 218–219
Teacher-initiated inquiry, and guidance for inquiry, time limits for tasks and, 153
105–106 workstation organization and, 151
Teachers and teaching, as inquiry-based. See Traditional learning model
Assessment; Inquiry-based teachers and classroom environment and, 215–216
teaching; Questioning skills development, for constructivist learning model versus, 66–70
teachers laboratory modifications and, 125–128, 132–133
Teaching career case study, 228–231 Transitions, and assessment modifications, 205–206
Techniques for questioning, and teachers’ Treagust, D., 78
questioning skills development, 170–175
Tests Van Scotter, P., 212
assessment choices and, 194–195 Verbal prompts, during scaffolding argumentation,
time management and, 153, 154 33, 37
Time management. See also Classroom Visions and vision statements, 62–64, 90–91
management Vygotsky, L. S. ., 74–75, 186
action-oriented tasks and, 149–150
concept maps and, 151–153 Wait-Time Monitoring Chart, 189
core concepts focus and, 150 Walsh, J., 145
daily rules and routines and, 150 Weiss, A., 127
description of, 148–149 White, C., 61, 157
directions for tasks and, 150–151 Wiggins, G., 193
essential or starter questions and, 149 Windschitl, M., 88–89
group size limits for tasks and, 153 Workstation organization, and time
interruptions in classroom and, 154 management, 151
lesson plans and, 150 Writing standards for literacy in science technical
questions about tasks and, 150–151 subjects, 24–25
student comprehension and, 149, 150–151
take-home tests and quizzes and, 154 Yeast case study, 91–99
test review limits and, 153 Youngson, R., 83
The Corwin
The Corwin logo—alogo—a ravenacross
raven striding striding
anacross an open book—represents
open book—represents thecourage
the union of
union Corwin
and learning. of courage and learning.
is committed to Corwin is committed
improving educationtoforimproving education
all learners by publishing
for all
books and learners
other by publishing
professional books and
development other professional
resources development
for those serving the field of
resources for those serving the field of PreK–12 education. By providing
PreK–12 education. By providing practical, hands-on materials, Corwin continues to
practical,
carry out hands-on
the promise of itsmaterials, CorwinEducators
motto: “Helping continues to
Docarry
Their outWork
the promise
Better.”
of its motto: “Helping Educators Do Their Work Better.”

Teaching High School Science Through Inquiry and Argumentation 2nbsped 1452244456 9781452244457 Compress

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teaching High School Science Through Inquiry and Argumentation 2nbsped 1452244456 9781452244457 Compress

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2

SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd.

ISBN 978-1-4522-4445-7 (pbk.: alk. paper)

1. Science — Study and teaching (Secondary) 2. Inquiry (Theory

Acquisitions Editor: Robin Najar This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Resource A: Resources for High School Science Teachers 234

Achieving Scientific Literacy

a tremendous burden on them, especially when considering the amount of subject

A Call for Instructional Reform

What Needs to Happen

What’s New About the

Making an Argument for Inquiry

“Jessie argues that _______. I agree with him because _______.”

Who This Book Is Written For

Douglas Llewellyn teaches science education courses at St. John Fisher

•• Inquire Within: Implementing Inquiry-Based Science Standards (2002)

Three Designations of Inquiry

Inquiry and Habits of Mind

critical thinking processes such as methods of diagnosis, speculation, and hypothesis

Benchmarks (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1993)

What the National Science Education

Inquiry is a multifaceted activity that involves making observations; posing questions;

•• an understanding of scientific concepts,

•• identify questions and concepts that guide scientific investigations,

What A Framework for K−12 Science

Inquiry and Scientific Practices

Inquiry as a Three-Legged Stool

Inquiry stands for a fundamental principle of how modern science is conducted.

1. Generating a science-related question or problem to be solved, one that physically,

As we communicate and share our explanations, inquiry assists in (a) connecting our

Seven Segments of Scientific Inquiry

3. Planning the Investigation

5. Analyzing the Data and Evidence

Figure 1.1 Seven Segments of Scientific Inquiry

• Draw an illustration of the materials and set up for the investigation.

The Pretzel Theory of Science Inquiry

Inquiry as a Human Endeavor

Ten Beliefs (and Rebuttals)

Rebuttal: Providing students with an opportunity to do labs, especially those with

Rebuttal: Although valuing questions is a basic commonality in an inquiry-based classroom,

Rebuttal: Actually inquiry and argument-based instruction have an enduring historical

Belief 9: I perceive inquiry as “soft science” and not content related.

Science teaching that attempts solely to impart to students the accumulated

What Science Inquiry

What Inquiry Is What Inquiry Isn’t

A Definition of Scientific Inquiry

•• generating a question or problem to be solved,

•• Learners are engaged by scientifically oriented questions.

Questions for Reflection and Discussion

Three Questions I Have

The Influence of Media

What Is a Scientific Argument?

the claim, a mental or physical model is often constructed to represent an explanation of

Making a Case for Argumentation

•• formulating claims based on evidence,

What the National Science Education

1. Using evidence and strategies for developing or revising an explanation

•• engages in a scientifically oriented question,

These recommendations clearly define the importance of having students engage in

What the Common Core State

Reading Standards for

Writing Standards for

What A Framework for K−12

•• Construct their own explanations of phenomena using their knowledge of accepted

“Jessie argues that _. I agree with him because _.”

•• I agree with (the author) because I believe .