EMPHASIZING THE PROCESS OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IN THE PHYSICAL
SCIENCE CLASSROOM THROUGH ALTERED TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES
By
Trevor Schmachtenberger

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Physical Sciences – Interdepartmental – Master of Science
2015

ABSTRACT
EMPHASIZING THE PROCESS OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IN THE PHYSICAL
SCIENCE CLASSROOM THROUGH ALTERED TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES
By
Trevor Schmachtenberger
High school science requires students to use the scientific method when solving
problems. The ability to solve problems in this way is a valuable and necessary skill for
the classroom and life experiences. The goal of this study was to fully incorporate
scientific thinking and methodology into the current curriculum. The hypothesis for this
study was: a gradual release of responsibility from instructor to student will show an
improvement in the ability of students to solve critical thinking problems, an integral part
of the scientific method.
This project was implemented over the period of one semester, 18 weeks and
covered eight units of study. The research reported here focused on three particular
units: Motion, Heat Energy, and Wave Energy.
Students in a Physical Science class participated in making observations,
identifying patterns, and asking questions based on the observed patterns, which led to
student developed hypotheses and protocols, including data collection and analysis.
Students participated in their own scientific practices, which, in turn, led to a sense of
ownership and also a more thorough understanding of the scientific method and its
practices as measured by lab activity accuracy and improvement in formative scores.
Pre-test and post-test results indicated an improvement in students’ ability to use
scientific methodology.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many people played important roles in helping to complete this project. I would
not have been able to successfully complete this endeavor without the advice, criticism
and patience of others. I send special thanks to my instructor and mentor, Merle
Heidemann, who patiently heard my concerns and ideas throughout the years and was
always open to hearing me out on even the most trivial undertaking. You are a benefit
to the College of Natural Science and an inspiration for future science teachers. Thanks
also goes to Margaret Iding for all the information she has provided along with her
wonderful smile.
Thank you to my wife and children for enduring missed excursions, along with
the stress I commonly display. Without your patience and understanding, little would
have been accomplished. Thanks for believing in me, Danielle; you are my rock.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ v
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... vi
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
Observation and Rationale .......................................................................................... 1
The Challenge ............................................................................................................. 1
Inquiry and Scientific Processes ................................................................................. 5
Reformed Teaching ................................................................................................... 12
Prediction .................................................................................................................. 18
Demographics/Research Setting ............................................................................... 19
IMPLEMENTATION ...................................................................................................... 21
RESULTS AND EVALUATION ..................................................................................... 29
Pretest/Posttest Results ............................................................................................ 29
Learning Objectives Analysis .................................................................................... 31
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION............................................................................... 33
Subjective Impressions ............................................................................................. 38
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... 40
Appendix 1 Parental Consent and Student Assent Form ........................................ 41
Appendix 2 Pretest/Posttest for Scientific Inquiry .................................................... 44
Appendix 3 Rubric for Pretest/Posttest ................................................................... 46
Appendix 4 Lab 1: Study of Motion ......................................................................... 47
Appendix 5 Lab 2: Heat Transfer Lab...................................................................... 52
Appendix 6 Lab 3: Study of Waves ......................................................................... 59
Appendix 7 Survey for Mr. Schmachtenberger’s Labs used in Scientific Method
Unit................................................................................................ 65
Appendix 8 Draft for Students----- QPOE2 Investigation Rubric for Labs ................ 67
Appendix 9 Results of: Survey for Mr. Schmachtenberger’s Labs Used in
Thesis Exploration......................................................................... 70
Appendix 10 Greenville High School ......................................................................... 73
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 74

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table1

Characteristics of Science Curriculum .............................................................. 12

Table 2

Levels of Learning Responsibilities ................................................................... 17

Table 3

Greenville Introduction to Physics: Scope and Sequence ................................. 21

Table 4

Comparison of Pretest/Posttest Raw Score Results ......................................... 29

Table 5

Group Statistics: Pretest/Posttest Analysis Scores ........................................... 30

Table 6

Data Analysis for Learning Objectives A-F Based on Paired T-Tests ............... 32

Table 7

Data for Water Temperature and Developing Clams ........................................ 44

Table 8

Learning Objectives Rubric .............................................................................. 46

Table 9

Activity Ranking Table ..................................................................................... 66

Table 10 Student Survey of Lab Activities ...................................................................... 70
Table 11 Student Survey of Preparation for Pretest/Posttest and Use of Scientific
Method ............................................................................................................. 71
Table 12 Preference Rank Order of Labs ....................................................................... 71

v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1

Boynton’s Linear Progression of Scientific Method ........................................ 7

Figure 2

How Science Works: The Flowchart Graphic .................................................. 9

Figure 3

Van Andel Institute QPOE2 Inquiry Model....................................................... 11

Figure 4

Gradual Release of Responsibility .................................................................. 16

Figure 5

Heat Transfer Lab: Students at Work .............................................................. 26

Figure 6

Wave Energy Lab: Experimental Set Up ........................................................ 27

Figure 7

Knowledge Probe Information ........................................................................ 47

Figure 8

Distance vs. Time Graph ................................................................................ 49

Figure 9

Distance vs. Speed Graph.............................................................................. 49

Figure 10

Student Knowledge Probe .............................................................................. 52

Figure 11

Observations of Data ...................................................................................... 53

Figure 12

Data Analysis.................................................................................................. 53

Figure 13

Graph One ...................................................................................................... 54

Figure 14

Graph Two ...................................................................................................... 54

Figure 15 Step Organizer ................................................................................................ 56
Figure 16

Student Knowledge Probe .............................................................................. 59

vi

Figure 17

Material Data .................................................................................................. 60

Figure 18

Sound Wave Graph ........................................................................................ 61

Figure 19

Draft for Students-----QPOE2 Investigation Rubric for Labs ........................ 67

vii

INTRODUCTION
Observation and Rationale
There is a problem in today’s science classroom: how do we as teachers
implement the practice of science so that students can use their own knowledge and
skills to solve problems in and out of school? Students understand that when given a
simple task, it is easy to follow written instructions. But when science students are
given the opportunity to develop their own methods to solve problems, they lack the
required skills. Instead of resorting to having a costly outside source solve common
problems, students need to attempt addressing these themselves, even at the expense
of failure. Science is the study of the natural world and why things occur the way that
they do. Asking questions, sorting out thoughts, and devising logical explanations have
become customary in today’s complex world. However, it is given that students have
had difficulty problem solving in and out of the classroom for years. For example, in my
classroom students have a hard time understanding the proposal of generating their
own plan for a possible solution to a problem. They are not used to developing their
own ideas into working models and helping them requires a lot of patience and
modeling. Even the wording of a question with its prefixes, unique science terminology,
and underlying meaning may need some sort of dissection to allow the reader to
comprehend the question being asked. Additionally, several of the current science
assessments, both national and state, place an emphasis on these practices.
The Challenge
The single largest science content area tested on the 2013 Michigan Merit Exam

1

(MME) was Scientific Inquiry and Reflection section (State Summary Report, 2013),
consisting of 25 of the 55 points possible. The MME is the standardized test given to all
Michigan Public School students in the eleventh grade as a measure of their
educational success. The state average on the science portion of the MME was only
26% of students demonstrating proficiency in science (MME Proficiency Data State
Snapshot, 2013). Greenville, Michigan, where the study reported here was conducted,
had 31% proficient on the MME, 35% partially proficient, while 34% were not proficient
in the science portion. In summary, only one-third of our students are meeting state
expectations as measured by this instrument.
These findings emphasize the need to focus on Scientific Inquiry and Reflection
in instruction. The State of Michigan test developers realize this too. Those twenty five
questions administered on the MME in the Scientific Inquiry and Reflection section
compare to a typical allotment of only two questions for the other fifteen tested content
areas in science. This indicates an emphasis on Inquiry and Reflection; for knowledge
acquisition is needed in today's public education system, for soon to be independent
adults.
In evaluating the usefulness of science teaching and instruction, a review of ACT
data shows that students who take science classes are generally more prepared to take
the ACT and, in turn, more ready for higher education than those who do not take extra
science classes. Nationally, 47% of students who take three years of science,
specifically Biology, Physics, and Chemistry, meet the ACT College Readiness
Benchmark for performance in science. Taking at least three years of science is
mandated by the Michigan Department of Education for high school graduation.
2

Nationwide, students who reported no science taken met the performance benchmark
at a rate of only 3% (ACT Research and Policy Brief, 2013). Further, the science
standards tested on the ACT are based on standards of Interpretation of Data, Scientific
Investigation, and Evaluation of Models, Inferences, and Experimental Results (College
and Career Readiness standards, 2014), resembling the areas that are also addressed
in the MME.
Additional score reports provide clear evidence that our students are not
proficient in these areas. In fact, ACT composite scores show that fewer than 26% of
Michigan students meet the readiness benchmark in Biology. Equally alarming, only
31% of the 2012 National High School graduating class met the benchmark (ACT
Profile Report-Michigan Graduating Class, 2012). It is apparent that a need exists to
address not only that students are taught the aforementioned skills but perhaps a
greater significance should be placed on how they are taught the skills.
In Michigan, and nearly every other state in the nation, the Next Generation
Science Standards (2013) are being adopted as guidelines for science education. The
primary focus of those standards is Scientific Inquiry. “ By the end of the 12th grade,
students should have gained sufficient knowledge of the practices, crosscutting
concepts, and core ideas of science and engineering to engage in public discussions on
science-related issues, to be critical consumers of scientific information related to their
everyday lives, and to continue to learn about science throughout their lives” (National
Research Council, 2012).

According to NGSS (2013), we are a country at risk of

falling behind in global economics as well in our educational preparedness. Students of
today need the science skills to compete in the expanding employment opportunities
3

that are in science-related fields. All students need a k-12 science education that
prepares them for college and careers. The two documents that preceded the NGSS
were the Benchmarks for Science Literacy and the National Science Education
Standards, both of which are around 15 years old. Both were quality documents that
states used to guide State Standards. Major advances have been made in science
education. More importantly, the most effective ways those students learn science has
also been changing. Critical thinking and communication skills play a pivotal role in
postsecondary success, which are also the practices that scientists and engineers use
on a daily basis. We use the term “practices” to indicate the active process of using
gained knowledge with the skills to follow through with actions.
As stated by NGSS (2013), the standards can be broken down into three
developed stages: Core ideas, Scientific Practices and Cross-Cutting Ideas. A little
about each follows.
Core idea– to be considered a core idea of the NGSS standards, the following
criteria must be met: The idea must have broad importance across multiple science or
engineering disciplines. It must be pertinent to the understanding or investigation of
more complex ideas and solving problems. It should relate to the interests and life
experiences of students and must be teachable and learnable over multiple age levels
with increasing levels of depth and sophistication.
Scientific Practices – These are the behaviors that scientists and students
engage in as they investigate, build models and construct theories of the natural world.
The National Research Council uses the term practices instead of skill because of the

4

required use of knowledge while also applying the physical skill of doing. Practice helps
avoid the interpretation of skill as rote mastery of an activity or procedure. Practice
involves not only the physical ability but also the cognitive and social aspects of the
process as well.
Crosscutting Concepts – These are bridges across scientific disciplines. They
help provide students with an organizational framework for connecting knowledge from
the various individual disciplines into a coherent and scientifically based view of the
world.
Inquiry and Scientific Practices
“If a single word had to be chosen to describe the goals of science educators
during the 30-year period that began in the late 1950’s, it would have to be “INQUIRY”
(DeBoer, 1991).
Inquiry has been defined in different ways. For example, Bell, Smetana, and
Binns ( 2005) state: “At its heart, inquiry is an active learning process in which students
answer research questions through data analysis.” In another definition, “Scientific
Inquiry refers to the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and
propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work. Inquiry also
refers to the activities of students in which they develop knowledge and understanding
of scientific ideas, as well as an understanding of how scientists study the natural world”
(National Research Council, 1996).
A recent study (Cobern, Schuster and Adams, 2014) noted, “By inquiry based
teaching of science we mean instruction reflecting the investigative approach, empirical
5

techniques, and reliance on evidence that scientists use in discovering and constructing
new knowledge.” Jeanpierre (1996), in the National Science Education Standards, said
that “Scientific inquiry refers to the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural
world and propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work. Inquiry
also refers to the activities of students in which they develop knowledge and
understanding of scientific ideas, as well as an understanding of how scientists study
the natural world.” In a Brief History on Inquiry: From Dewey to Standards (2006),
Barrows suggested that there is a lack of agreement on the meaning of inquiry in the
field of science education, broadly defining it as the use of knowledge and skills to
answer questions that may exist. At times many steps may be needed to solve a
problem, and other times the problem may seem simple with few steps required to solve
it. Research may be involved if the problem eludes the observer. Knowing how to
tackle resources should be an integral part of inquiry. However, looking at how
“inquiry” has changed involves looking at current definitions and some past
perspectives.
Historically, the inquiry method used in high school science classes has
changed. As far back as the 1930’s and 40’s, students needed practice in developing a
methodology for conceptualizing science. In that time period, articles spoke of
developing “the habit of scientific thinking” (Quigley, et.al, 2011). By the 1950’s the
terminology of the process had again changed, but the thinking and practical application
of science in education remained basically the same.
Twenty years ago, a shift in thinking appeared and high school science involved
a fairly linear process commonly called the “scientific practices”. As recently as 10
6

years ago, NASA promoted this linear process of thinking in what it depicts even today
as the scientific method (Dunbar, 2008). Figure 1 depicts the linear nature of this
thinking which is currently common in K-12 education and literature (Boynton, 2003).
While contemplating Figure 1, I recalled that I, too, was using a textbook that was at
least 10 years old. It too depicted the scientific model as a straight line in which steps
played a predominant role.
Figure 1 Boynton’s Linear Progression of Scientific Method

The Scientific Method, as modeled in Figure 1, was at one time thought to
represent the process of science. Textbooks had diagrams and descriptions that looked
similar to the one above and had little room for divergent ideas; they were rigid in their
procedure. The beginning steps were followed in an order that was not to be displaced.
“It was a simple recipe for performing scientific investigations” (How Science Works,
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_01, 2012). We now know that this
version of the scientific method is much too rigid and simplified; it does not promote
return to earlier parts or steps in the sequence and misrepresents the iterative nature of
science. We have begun to understand that such a linear method is not true science
with a distinct path to follow. Often presented in textbooks as a step-by-step process
following a very organized and systematic path with which to follow, this figure falsely
7

indicates an unidirectional process.
For true science to take place, as an iterative process, steps that may have once
been visited may need returning to. Multiple directions can be taken, and various paths
are determined by the participants’ thoughts and experiences.
However, the linear scientific process model is a very systematic approach to the
design. For the early years in school, this design may be useful by avoiding distracting
alternate paths that could lead to confusion and miscommunication. In discussing the
process of science as a summary in textbooks and articles, the linear method may be
useful, but for practicing science, it is inadequate.
For an even better understanding of the true nature of science to take place, a
more intricate model is needed. History has shown us that the linear model does not
provide adequate movement within its parameters. According to (How Science Works:
The Flowchart Graphic in http://undsci.berkeley.edu/flowchart_noninteractive.php) the
working model of science, Figure 2, is deemed the opposite of the “cookbook” model. It
enables a non-linear approach to science that allows for iteration within the model.

8

Figure 2 How Science Works: The Flowchart Graphic

Based on the model of Understanding Science and How Science Works, a few
recommendations were listed for “true” science to take place.
•

many different activities in many different sequences

•

science depends on the interactions within the scientific community,
different people at different times.

•

science relies on creativity and an unpredictable course.

•

scientific conclusions are revisable, asking new questions as old ones are
being answered.

The process of science is iterative. It circles back on itself but can lead to
deeper and deeper questioning. There are double ended arrows in the diagram
indicating that one may return to earlier steps. There are many routes in the process.
Scientific testing is at the heart of the process. The scientific community helps to
ensure science’s accuracy. The process of science is intertwined with society. Science
is a process, but one that relies on accumulated knowledge to move forward.
Observations yield data which could be both quantitative and qualitative. Testing the
hypotheses and theories is at the core of the science process. Ideas are supported
9

when actual observations match expected observations and are contradicted when they
do not match. The belief remains that if students practice and master the distinct skills
of observing, describing, inferring, measuring and developing a hypothesis, then they, in
turn, would be naturally able to solve real world problems when they were faced with
them.
The aforementioned models have aspects of them which are beneficial in some
sense to various learning types and situations. The Van Andel Institute has arrived at
its own conceptual model of the Scientific Model (Figure 3 VAEI, Van Andel Education
Institute. "QPOE Inquiry Model" Grand Rapids, MI: VAEI, 2013.—. "QPOE_2." Grand
Rapids, MI: VAEI, 2013).
Greenville Public Schools decided to participate in a plan with Van Andel
Institute which offers a mentoring program for teachers, which fosters inquiry based
science in classrooms. Greenville science faculty has met with these partners on every
professional development day, which means that we meet around 8-10 times a year.
We have been developing plans, with their assistance, to become more adept in the use
of their pedagogical model for scientific practices. It is a hybrid to the Understanding
Science model and has many similarities. The layout of the Van Andel Model which we
have used in the classroom for the past two years is shown in Figure 3 (QPOE Inquiry
Model, 2013).

10

Figure 3 Van Andel Institute QPOE2 Inquiry Model

One will notice that similar to the Understanding Science model (Figure 2), all
major movement is through double ended arrows. This allows for lateral as well as
vertical movement within the organizer. The Van Andel Institute model has 5 major
rectangles: Question, Prediction, Observation, Explanation and Evaluation. These may
seem quite similar to the linear steps of the Boynton model (Figure 1). The subunits in
the green font are the skills and hands-on application that are needed to successfully
move to the next major rectangle. No one order to the system must be used and
returning to prior steps is possible. This allows for the student to explore different ideas
and not have to return to the very beginning each time. As a poster/visual aid in my
classroom, I have commonly pointed to the pertinent step when the occasion arises. I
have had a fair amount of success with this model as I have become more comfortable
with its use. The lab format and handout generally does not vary much from lab to lab.
11

That is the model used in this thesis.

Reformed Teaching
According to the text, Assessing Hands on Science (Brown and Shavelson,
1996), we are amidst a reform that is taking place in our science teaching. Table 1
shows the differences between pre and current reforms in science teaching since 1996.
All those ideas are now almost twenty years old and these practices are more common
in the classroom than previously. This change is based on the concept of how learning
occurs. Students integrate new knowledge with previously obtained information and
construct knowledge for themselves. In the classroom, rote memorization has given
way to direct experience with scientific applications – hands on activities- that promote
construction of knowledge. “Students do science, not just learn about it.” (Brown and
Shavelson, 1996) Prior to this period, reform science was primarily text driven, meaning
that students were presented with facts and principles and asked to read about them
without ever becoming “active” in their own learning. Instructors were in charge of the
labs or demonstrations; rarely would students actively get their hands dirty. Now
students learn by doing; they put their hands on the materials themselves and are
allowed to make mistakes and learn through exposure.
Table 1 Characteristics of Science Curriculum
Pre-Reform (Pre 1996)

Reform (After 1996-Present)

Emphasis on knowing

Emphasis on doing as well as knowing

Students’ primary learning tools are the
textbook and the notepad
Broad coverage of many topics

Students’ primary learning tools are lab
notebooks and manipulatives
In-depth coverage of a few topics
12

Table 1 (cont’d)
Students work individually

Students work individually or with partners

Spectator-based format

Activity-based format

These very strategies are used in the classroom where the work described here
took place. The number of characteristics shown in Table 1 that one may implement is
dependent on the exercise used in class. The complexity of the reform era has placed
higher demands on instructors as well as the student. In pre-reform teaching, students
worked independently and generally did not work in teams. Now students are
constantly working with others and sharing ideas one with another. Lab materials as
well as textbooks play an equally important role in the learning classroom. Hands-on
has come forefront and is not limited to just the instructor showing examples or
modeling of scientific behaviors or experimentation. “I do it, We do it, and You do it” is
the phrase that defines the changes that have taken place in the classroom in the past
two decades. The expectations for the student as well as the instructor have increased
with time.

Today, the instructor serves more as the facilitator than just the distributor of
information. He or she serves as the guide in the active participation of all students in
developing the skills and knowledge to solve not only classroom skills and problems but
also in the process obtaining the pertinent information to be productive in the world
outside of the classroom.
One does not have to write his/her own teaching materials to be the author of
classroom curriculum based on reformed teaching. The teacher is the author when
13

selecting the appropriate activities, reading passages and videos, writing tasks, etc. and
blend them into a coherent instructional unit (Blakeslee, T.,Kahan, J.(1996).
Teachers and staff may choose to implement their curriculum in different ways.
While some teachers and schools are striking out on their own to interpret and
implement the mix of current standards, others are joining forces and working with
partners of education such as Van Andel Education Institute in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
As previously described, the Van Andel Education Institute offers educational programs
for teachers as well as for students. The Science Academy is founded on the idea of
advancing and promoting science education and increasing the number of students who
choose to pursue careers in science or related fields.
Greenville Public schools is taking on this role and is one of several school
districts that is using its professional development time to work with teachers and
curriculum design professionals that have classroom experience and are rehearsed in
developing a inquiry-based curriculum.
Clearly, it is important to recognize that inquiry and reflection are vital concepts to
teach in public education. However, of underlying importance are the pedagogical
approaches and the learning abilities of the students to whom these concepts are being
taught. There are several means by which students can learn how to problem solve,
but research indicates that there is a need to provide a template for how teachers will
effectively teach these practical skills to the students. According to Simplifying Inquiry
Instruction ( Bell,R., Smetana, L., and Binns, I., (2005) noted “It is important to realize
that not all inquiry activities are created equal.” Others have used cookbook labs and
varied their format by eliminating step by step procedures and allowing students to

14

generate their own methods for problem solving. This allows for a more tiered approach
to the inquiry levels and obtains a higher level of critical thinking. This also allows for
student to access the inquiry model from different backgrounds and perspectives.
What works for one student or classroom might not work in another
setting/another time period. With the goal for each student being a working knowledge
of scientific inquiry, then the practical as well as the theoretical is expedient. As
Anderson in Reforming Science Teaching: What Research says about Inquiry (2002)”
states “… one should not address them (principles of inquiry) in isolation.”
Collaboration with peers and colleagues assist in developing the activities and effort
needed to reach this goal. As noted by the author as well as Susan Musante in A
Dynamic Alternative to the Scientific Method (2013), the science flow chart helps
explain how science is done. It also generates interest and inquiry to a higher level with
students recognizing that science happens in many different ways while also interacting
with their different needs and backgrounds.
Figure 4 shows an effective mechanism to teaching problem solving, the Gradual
Release of Responsibility Model of instruction developed by Douglas Fisher (2006).
This model indicates a progression from teacher modeling to student doing over time.
Gradual release allows for a slow and very method based direction of education for
students. This approach fosters greater retention and recovery of information for the
student learner. This model can also be used in the progression of inquiry labs.
Starting with a guided lab, students can learn their role and potentially prepare for the
next tier or type of lab called guided inquiry. When they have finally mastered this
concept then they can move to an open-inquiry lab in which they play the predominant
15

role in facilitating their own learning. The three labs in which this occurred in the work
reported here are included in Figure 4.
Figure 4 Gradual Release of Responsibility

For these reasons, this research focused on the processes and application of
the scientific method. There existed a need to provide learners with a strong
understanding of scientific practice or “methods” and the tools to conduct themselves as
scientists in science classroom as well as in their worlds at large. Additionally, it is
clearly a requirement for students to demonstrate the ability to conduct these practices
in order to receive a diploma. The student should also achieve greater results and
rewards for improved performance on high stakes assessments that are commonly
used to determine college readiness and admittance.
As can be seen in Table 2, the role of the teacher was significant in the early
stages of the developmental process of gradual release. In the first stage, “I do it”,
direct instruction from instructor was necessary to provide adequate modeling for
student development. The students’ role is to predominantly be a listener while asking
questions and clarifying with the instructor over unknown processes. The classroom is
16

organized and very teacher centered.
Table 2 Levels of Learning Responsibilities
Mentoring Roles & Responsibilities
Teacher
I do it
Direct Instruction

We do it
Guided instruction

You do it
independently

Provides direct instruction
Establishes goals and purpose
Models
Think aloud

•
•
•

Actively listens
Takes Notes
Asks for clarification

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Interactive instruction
Works with students
Checks, prompts, clues
Provides additional modeling
Meets with needs-based groups
Provides feedback
Evaluates
Determines the level of understanding

•
•
•

Asks and responds to questions
Works with teacher and classmates
Completes process alongside others

•
•
•

Works alone
Relies on notes, activities, classroom learning to
complete assignment
Takes full responsibility for outcome

•
•
•

Moves among groups
Clarifies confusion
Provides support

•
•
•
•
•

Works with classmates, shares outcomes
Collaborative on authentic task
Consolidates learning
Completes process in small group
Looks to peers for clarification

Independent Practice

You do it together
Collaborative Learning

Student

•
•
•
•

As one transitions to the “We do it” or guided instruction, the student takes a
more independent role. Instruction is interactive and the teacher works alongside the
students. Modeling occurs but increased release is offered and the student now takes a
more active role in developing their own ideas, while still working along classmates and
instructor.
The next level of release is termed “You do it independently” or otherwise known
as independent practice. Previous stages have prepared the student for a more
independent process. The instructor provides feedback but only facilitates. At this point
the student should be knowledgeable of the independent expectations and work alone.
Lastly, “You do it together” is also known as the collaborative learning model.
Teacher role is to simply move among groups, and clarify questions by making the
17

students think on their own two feet. Each student uses their peers for clarification of
content and the instructor more or less observes the interactions of the students. At this
point, students have now acquired the role of the instructor and devise and answer
questions from within the group itself. This is where real learning takes place. When
students have the ability to teach their own then we know that they are confident in their
own understanding.
This chart includes a fourth level of responsibility. In each of the 3 labs that were
completed, more than one level of instruction may overlap another. Although the
instructor’s intent might have been specific, learning and responsibilities occurred
concurrently as evidenced by students’ responses. Indeed, it has been this instructor’s
desire that students will use these principles and practices in real life experiences.
Prediction
If students receive instruction on scientific practices and conduct systematic
investigations in a physical science classroom over the course of 18 weeks, their ability
to solve problems, as measured by their performance on pre and post test instruments,
will indicate an improvement of the students’ ability to use these practices.
The subjects (students) that are involved with this research were taught the
entire regular physical science curriculum that is currently required by the Michigan
Framework. Additionally, the students were assessed using both formative and
summative instruments in six key areas of the “scientific method” that is currently part of
the curriculum taught in my classroom.
A mechanism of gradually releasing responsibility to the students will be used to
18

emphasize the process and is described in Implementation. This approach was chosen
as it aligned well with the needs of both the district and also the standards that are
accepted in the discipline of Physical Science at the Secondary Level.
Demographics/Research Setting
Greenville Public Schools is located to the north of Grand Rapids and to the west
of Lansing. It is in the heart of the Lower Peninsula and is considered to be part of
western Michigan. According to the United States Census Bureau of 2012, Greenville
has a base population of around 8500 people within the city limits and many more
surrounding that go to school in Greenville. The median income per household is
$28,008 with 30.1 % of citizens being below the poverty level, when compared to the
state of Michigan as a whole of 16.3 %. Change has taken place in the last 10 years
with the closure of a main employer known as Electrolux. Electrolux was a refrigerator
manufacturing facility that employed approximately 2700 people. This turn of events
has placed a strain on the employment opportunities for all citizens of Greenville
whether directly or through far reaching spin offs. The current education level of
residents aged 25 and older in the Greenville area is the following: 85.6 % have at
least graduated from high school, while 18.9% have a Bachelor’s degree or higher.
The Greenville Public Schools District has four public elementary schools, one
middle school and a high school. In the 2013-2014 school year there were
approximately 1,185 students enrolled at Greenville High School. The ethnic makeup of
the school was 92% white, 4% Hispanic, and 1 % Black. The graduation rate was
around 90% with a 6% dropout rate. Of those that attended Greenville High School,

19

43% received either free or reduced lunches. The maximum class size for a Greenville
science section is a group of 28 students. This is mandated for safety and by union
standards.

20

IMPLEMENTATION
Over the course of an 18 week period during the 2013-2014 school year,
students were enrolled in a class titled Introduction to Chemistry and Physics. This
course was informally referred to as Physical Science. This class was a freshmen level
course and was considered a prelude to the full 36 week courses on Chemistry or
Physics that students will take their junior year. With successful completion of physical
science, biology, physics or chemistry, students at Greenville High School meet science
graduation requirements.
In this introductory course, students were exposed to a wide range of topics
related to Chemistry and Physics. The first semester was spent studying Chemistry and
the second semester was studying Physics. The scope of the topics and sequence are
shown in Table 2 for the second semester course. All of the units included labs as part
of the instruction; however, the three shaded were those implemented in the data
collection for this thesis.
Table 3 Greenville Introduction to Physics: Scope and Sequence
2nd Semester Outline

Introduction to Physics –Scope and Sequence

Unit 1

Forms of Energy

Unit 2

The Study of Motion

Unit 3

The Study of Forces

Unit 4

Electrical Energy

Unit 5

Heat Energy

Unit 6

Wave Energy

21

Table 3 (cont’d)
Unit 8

Electromagnetic Spectrum

Unit 7

Sound Energy

The students experienced a variety of instructional practices throughout the
semester including lectures, demonstrations, guided inquiries, activities, laboratory
based inquiries, videos, guest presentations, and field trips. A grading system was
employed that reflected this teaching approach which included the use of a highly
developed rubric for lab activities (Appendix 3). The focus of the research reported here
highlighted scientific practice and laboratory based inquiry.
Based on the Fisher (2006) model, the researcher developed appropriate lab
activities in the summer months of 2013 at Michigan State. To construct the best
possible model, outcomes for students were assessed with input from colleagues. Time
and thought were needed to develop student activities and assessments to encourage
independence. Colleagues reflected on the success of each targeted lab. As a result,
modifications or changes were implemented. Some changes took place to enhance
comprehension while successful techniques continued to be used.
Approval was granted from the Greenville High School principal and the
Institutional Review Board at Michigan State University (Appendix 11) for this project.
Parental consent was required for students to be considered subjects in this study.
Each student was given a consent form (Appendix 1) and asked to return it in a sealed
envelope to the office. Of the two classes numbering 56 students, 20 students
22

completed all additional requirements and had acceptable attendance.
At the beginning of this study, all students were given a pretest (Appendix 2) to
establish baseline data and proficiency level on the selected learning objectives.
The following learning objectives provided a written description of the skills that
students needed to demonstrate in order to be considered proficient in using the
scientific method for the Introduction to Physics classroom. These objectives reflect
what is required to accurately summarize and use the scientific method. Each objective
was listed and accompanied by a basic description of what the evaluator used for
scoring on a pretest and posttest. (Appendix 3). A posttest assessment (Appendix 2)
followed the third laboratory unit, that measured progress in meeting these learning
objectives.
When a student demonstrated proficiency for an objective, it was scored as two
points.

If the student described the concept, but was not able to provide an accurate

example he or she was given one point. If the student had no relevant knowledge or no
attempt was made, he or she received no points.
The six learning objectives are as follows:
A. The student will be able to write a question about an observation. The question
must be relevant to the observation, must be at least one written sentence, and be
testable.
B. The student will be able to write a hypothesis. The hypothesis must relate to the
observation and question designed in Learning Objective A. Further, the hypothesis
must be easily testable by the student. Students write their hypotheses as complete
sentences.
23

C. The student will identify controls/variables that might influence his/her
hypothesis. The student must list four factors that could be considered controls or
variables in the investigation of their hypothesis, as defined in Learning Objective B.
The four factors could be either controls, manipulated or responding variables.
D. The student will set up an experiment to test his/her hypothesis. The
experiment must be described in such a way that the evaluator could perform the same
procedural steps and expect the same outcome. This would probably include a list of
the steps the student takes to conduct his or her investigation. The steps would indicate
measurements such as quantity, mass, temperature, etc. The student might also
include qualitative data such as cloud cover, color, or other immeasurable factors.
E. The student will collect and analyze data while conducting his/her experiment.
The student will conduct the experiment, run trials, collect data, and record data using
tables, graphs, or other appropriate measures. The student will provide an adequate
written description that summarizes the meaning of his or her data.

F. The student will write a statement that indicates a claim with evidence and
reasoning. The student will need to indicate an answer to his or her investigation
question as defined in the Learning Objective A-this is a claim. Further, the student will
need to reference the data (Learning Objective E) that supports his/her claim. Finally,
the student will explain how/why the evidence supports the claim.

The focus of this research was to document student performance in regards to
these learning objectives over the course of 18 weeks as measured by three inquiry
labs write-ups (Appendix 4-6). The instructor expected that this would be a sufficient
24

number of labs spaced throughout the semester and would not hamper completing all
content areas. The reason the specific units were chosen was that each of the labs
was relatively easy to transition to the gradual release format as displayed earlier in
Figure 4 by Fisher (2006). Each write-up was assigned after the student completed a
lab/activity where he/she was given instruction on the scientific practices that are used
to teach inquiry at Greenville High School. These write-ups measured the six selected
learning objectives as previously described. Further, the students were given
increasing responsibility for completion of each lab. This procedure will be explained in
more detail as the activities are described.
The instruction of each unit followed a general format. Vocabulary terms were
given as an introduction to terminology to be used in the unit. The student looked up
the definitions to the terms and wrote them out using their glossary definitions. These
terms were used for a quiz at a later date in the unit. Power point notes or an outline
was provided to the students which covered the lecture aspect of the unit. Each day
new material was added to the growing body of material that was added to each note
taking session. Each unit was broken down into manageable chunks so that students
were able to apply the new information to a reinforcement exercise which was a daily
assignment. Homework was referred to as daily work and seat time was used for its
completion. These assignments were then either graded by the instructor or covered
using a digital white board to display student answers and instructor corrections. Unit
tests were generally given at the end of a unit after a review and question time is given.
Labs are dispersed amongst the daily routine and there is usually one or two labs per
unit.
25

The first lab in this study was called Study of Motion. (Appendix 4) Its emphasis
was on the Scientific Method and was intended to teach the concept of science as a
process. Students were closely guided throughout this activity. Therefore, this lab
would be considered a directed inquiry lab. Because the first unit was scientific inquiry,
the students received a significant amount of teacher directed content instruction, using
the Communities of Practice model as developed by VanAndel Education Institute. The
lesson itself also promoted the values of repetition and prediction in doing science.
Question prompting was used heavily in this lab. It also included instructor modeling
and scaffold learning for the students. In addition, it was also made known that for this
lab, instructor involvement would be major, but decreasing as experience increased.
The second lab was called Heat Transfer Lab (Appendix 5) and addressed
insulators and conductors.
Figure 5 Heat Transfer Lab: Students at Work

In following the form of gradual release, students were expected to play a more
meaningful role in their learning (Figure 5). Active questioning was encouraged and
the students were more actively involved than previously, as demonstrated by the
26

amount of active hands on procedures they were left to develop themselves. Students
were given the choice of multiple secondary articles made available for resource
information by the instructor. The group members then decided which article contained
the most useful information to be used in their final write-ups.
The third and final lab for this study (Figure 6) used to measure student progress
and understanding the process of science was called Study of Waves (Appendix 6).
Figure 6 Wave Energy Lab: Experimental Set Up

Students followed guidelines that were set out for them. More independence
from direct instruction was emphasized. Students were expected to find information
supporting suggested hypotheses on their own initiative. Completion of this lab was to
be expected in a more timely manner compared to prior labs.
Technology was brought into this third lab to enhance the gradual release model.
A frequency analyzer was used to determine the sound wave frequencies of various
solutions. This mobile device was handheld and used to record the wave frequencies
that are obtained from striking a glass beaker filled with an unknown liquid solution. It
also determined wave frequency in Hertz.
Because all investigations in science involve similar basic components, each
27

time a student experienced a lab, he or she was required to complete the six learning
objectives that were addressed in the initial lab. The gradual release model was used
in all three of the labs. For each consecutive lab, higher expectations were placed on
the students. In this manner students were taking control of their own learning in
making predictions, setting up and controlling experiments, analyzing and interpreting
data, and deciding whether or not to accept or reject their own hypothesis.
After the ten week period used for class instruction and labs, a separate day was
used for the post test (Appendix 2) and the student survey (Appendix 8). Discussion
and student remarks were made concerning the class content and application of labs.
Some implied that the labs began to get easier with more experience with the model.
Further expansion of student comments are noted in the Discussion section of this
thesis.

28

RESULTS AND EVALUATION
There were sixty possible candidates for this study. However, due to lack of
completion of work, student absences, or refusal to participate, the number of
participants was limited to twenty. Three separate analyses were examined in this
thesis.
Pretest/Posttest Results:
Eligible students completed the parental consent form (Appendix 1), completed
all class materials and turned in all lab work for the comparison using data analysis.
Identical forms of the pretest/posttest were used (Appendix 2). The students were
required to complete questions on the pretest/posttest using their own thinking skills in
determining the best logical answers. The range for each objective was scored on a 0-2
point scale value. These were analyzed using a rubric (Appendix 3). Factors used to
score these questions were noted in the rubric. The scores were analyzed to determine
statistical differences between pretest and posttest scores, using a paired t-test
(http://www.physics.csbsju.edu/stats/Paired_t-test_NROW_form.html). Pretest and
Posttest data are shown in Table 4.
Table 4 Comparison of Pretest/Posttest Raw Score Results
Student
Number
1.

Pretest

Posttest

Difference

8

8

0

2.

10

12

+2

3.

10

11

+1

4.

12

12

0

5.

7

8

+1

6.

11

12

+1

29

Table 4 (cont’d)
7.

7

12

+5

8.

10

7

-3

9.

11

8

-3

10.

10

12

+2

11.

8

10

+2

12.

10

12

+2

13.

9

9

0

14.

7

9

+2

15.

11

12

+1

16.

7

11

+4

17.

9

8

-1

18.

6

9

+3

19.

9

12

+3

9

8

-1

75.4%

84.16%

20.

This comparison generated a P- value of < 0.035 (Table 5). This result was the
analysis of the mean pretest and posttest scores of all 20 subjects. Using a statistical
value of 0.05 level of significance as a threshold, this difference was statistically
significant.
Table 5 Group Statistics: Pretest/Posttest Analysis Scores
N

Mean

Standard
Deviation

Range
(Points)

Percentage
Scored

Pretest

20

9.05

1.67

6.0-12.0

75%

Posttest

20

10.1

1.86

7.0-12.0

84%

Probability
Assuming Null

P- value of
< 0.035

Most students improved their post test performance; however, twenty-five
percent of the 20 students did not improve. An examination of the average scores
30

showed the students’ scores increased from 75% to 84%. Based on pretest
performance, the maximum increase permitted was 25%.
Learning Objectives Analysis
Six learning objectives were used as criteria in determining scores for the
students’ pretest/posttests. Each objective was evaluated and scored on a 0, 1, and 2
point basis. Each objective was scrutinized according to how well the student
responded. For example, student # 29, when asked the first pretest response
evaluated by the LOA (Appendix 2): Make an observation of the above situation and ask
a question about it. The student responded in the following manner,” As the
temperature increases in Celsius the number of clams goes up then down.” This
response received a point value of 1of 2 possible points since the student did not
propose a question as suggested in the Learning objective. On the Posttest, the same
student responded, “30 degrees Celsius is the highest developing clam. Why does the
number of developing fertilized eggs decrease when the temperature gets cold?” In
addition, student responses were also evaluated using the rubric in Appendix 3. This
response received the maximum of 2 points.
Evaluation of data for all students participating is shown in Table 6. A threshold
value of 0.05 was used to determine statistically significant differences on each
objective.

31

Table 6 Data Analysis for Learning Objectives A-F Based on Paired T-Tests
earning
Objective

N

Mean
Pretest

Mean
Posttest

A
B
C
D
E
F

20
20
20
20
20
20

1.80
1.75
1.75
1.20
1.15
1.40

1.75
1.85
1.70
1.50
1.75
1.55

Standard
Deviation
Pretest
.410
.444
.444
.523
.587
.503

Standard
Deviation
Posttest
.550
.366
.571
.607
.444
.605

Probability
assuming
null
.716
.330
.772
.137
.002 *
.330

*Statistically Significant
At the 0.05 level of significance, Learning Objective E was statistically
significant. There was increased knowledge of the learning goal. Learning Objective E
entailed the students’ abilities to collect and analyze data, after conducting their lab
experiments. This practice had increased significantly according to the pretest/posttest
data. Though at least one other Learning Objective came close to being significant
(Learning Objective D- setting up experiment to test their hypothesis), it did not reach
the statistical required level. These results suggested several possible explanations
and or hypotheses which will be brought up in the Discussion section of this thesis.
Gradual release of responsibility was also a primary objective of this study.
Tables 4 and 5 noted the pretest/posttest differences of individual students. Sixty
percent of the students based on pretest/posttest data improved, while twenty-five
percent did not. Fifteen percent remained the same.

32

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The emphasis of this study was to assist students in developing a means for
solving science questions as well as everyday problems that occur outside of the school
setting. Too many times in the past science instructors simply allowed the students to
complete lab activities and experiments without challenging them to use their own
abilities. Teachers processed students through the sequence of the scientific method
without them controlling their outcomes.
We have seen, through the development and changes of the scientific model,
that history has influenced current models of inquiry.( Quigley, et. al, 2011). The
scientific model as presented in schools started as a linear progression that had a very
systematic and intentional order with little variation. This was seen in Boynton’s Linear
Progression Model (Figure1). The science education community now knows, believes,
and implements processes in the multidirectional version as referenced in Figure 2,
“How Science Works: The Flowchart Graphic”.( How Science Works: The Flowchart
Graphic in http://undsci.berkeley.edu/flowchart_noninteractive.php; Van Andel Institute
QPOE2 Inquiry Model, 2013).
In addition, Van Andel Institute for Science Education developed instructional
models that allow for the gradual release of responsibility. This, in turn, led to more
student ownership and self direction. Fisher and Frey (2013) indicated that by using a
more intentional, incremental approach while expanding the student accountability,
there can be an increase in background skills and knowledge.
The instructor’s intentions for this study were to show the students that there was

33

a proper way to “do” science. Actively participating as scientists in the classroom,
practicing skills, and developing knowledge allowed for student gains in increased
responsibility and scientific inquiry (Tables 4 and 5). Based on lab practice, scientific
inquiry and gradual release provided focus to have students reach the desired outcome,
becoming “true” scientists. Analysis showed a positive significant difference in Pretest
and Posttest students’ scores. Observable behaviors in the classroom supported the
findings overall. The students had changed their patterns of questioning and strength of
questions while determining outcomes. Depth of knowledge in the given expectations
also increased.
For informational purposes, the format of the three labs was similar (Appendices
4-6). By using a modeling process when completing these labs, I was able to actively
control the amount of gradual release in the classroom setting. For example one might
compare this teaching model to the learning involved in riding a bike. I held onto the
seat as they learned to gain their balance (understand terminology and expectations)
and pedal (try to hypothesize and experiment without retribution) to keep their balance.
As they pedaled faster through labs two and three, they learned that they could be in
charge of their own understanding and ideas. Without this opportunity to explore and
fail, there would be few gains.
For the Study of Motion Lab (Appendix 4), teacher directed instruction was used.
Many prompting questions were used and the students were directly led through all
sections of the lab. Pre-lab discussion of background information was given in advance
of the laboratory exercise. Basically, this consisted of handouts, preselected articles
from the instructor, note taking, vocabulary exposure and varied classroom exercises to
34

ready the students for the lab work.
A second lab, The Heat Transfer (Appendix 5), involved student input to a
greater degree. Each time students completed labs, fewer oral directions and less
material was provided for them. They were expected to initiate their own questions,
responses and knowledge probes. This lab involved them choosing from a teacher
selected group of articles, which provided additional information for their conclusions.
After reading their selected article, students were to share newfound ideas and facts
with the other three members of their group. The students were observed making their
own discoveries and sharing with their peers. This intermediate process gave the
students confidence and more control, something they appeared to desire. It also
satisfied the goal of more student led discovery.
In the third and final lab, The Study of Waves, students picked their own
secondary knowledge resources. These resources were used for the background
information to supplement the students’ prior knowledge about waves. Attaching this
resource to their lab was part of the scoring rubric when evaluating the third lab activity.
As shown in student lab reports (Appendix 7), the students were able to successfully
complete and understand the relevant concepts.
As a class, students were required to develop their own experiments with their
own procedural steps and their own analysis. The students increased in their ability to
obtain knowledge of how to work through lab exercises. This ability should further
assist them in the future as the development of the Van Andel Model occurs regularly
throughout high school.

35

The success of this technique in the science classroom is difficult to measure.
Pretest/Posttest and Learning Objectives allow for more objective data analysis.
According to Ronald D. Anderson (2010), there is no silver bullet for inquiry. However,
inquiry and gradual release do intertwine.
Classroom observation determined a positive difference in using gradual release
in this study. Observable behaviors in the classroom supported the findings overall. In
this period of time and with the three labs, the students came up with more of their own
ideas than previously in more structured settings. Fewer leading questions by the
teacher were needed. More examples were elicited from students near the end of the
study. More collaboration took place within the classroom and in their small groups.
More ownership in experimental set up and outcomes were observed.
Sandra Clark from the English Teaching Forum, (2014) noted that like scientific
inquiry, gradual release is not a linear process. There needs to be a place for sufficient
practice and guided instruction. Then this becomes, with lots of practice and trial and
error, student centered instruction.
Several student comments were also interesting in considering the efficiency of
gradual release: “The experiments were the only thing that jogged my brain (student #
20).” “We had to do a lot of thinking and come up with experiments(s) ourselves
(student # 11).” “It was different and made me think (student #13).”
This study was not without its challenges.
Interpretation of pretest/posttest results indicated that there was a substantial
increase in student performance. Several factors could have contributed to this
36

increase. First, this was the second time that the students were exposed to these
particular questions, so previous learning may have impacted results. One should note
the instructor did not go over or deliberately teach this pretest before or after
administration.
Second, the subjects were cognizant they were part of an experiment in a
research project. Thus, some “halo effect” may have contributed to positive results. In
addition, the instructor noted as time passed, the students became more comfortable
with the classroom content and assessments.
Third, over the course of eighteen weeks, the students’ behaviors showed
definite improvement in completing expected tasks, written assignments, lab activities,
and other classroom activities.
However, there were difficulties with using only a limited number of hours
in implementing these new concepts and conditions for student use. We had eight units
for the semester and a limited amount of time was set aside for each. By focusing more
time and greater emphasis on this model, the students would become more rehearsed
in how to use it and expectations would become more normalized. Allowing time for
middle school and the high school science staffs to meet would allow for open sharing
of problems and allow for advanced discussion and best practices with the Van Andel
model. Instructors could share their concerns and successes to all staff in terms of
curriculum change and the values derived from gradual release. It has taken over three
years to reconstruct approximately 50% of these labs with Scientific Inquiry and Gradual
Release.

37

Subjective Impressions
According to Learning Objectives A-F, students were able to form a more
independent approach to problem solving, although this was not substantial in the data
that was recorded (Tables 4 and 5). An increase of approximately ten percent was
substantial. Considering these are freshmen class students, the room for improvement
in the next three years will be substantial if a similar setting and student motivation
continue.
As a teacher, use and application of this type of learning was difficult to
administer at the beginning but eased with experience. Although not always successful
in the first or second attempt, increases were noticed in student comprehension and
application with each succeeding lab and its write-up. I allowed the opportunity for
students to challenge the norms of the classroom and its predictable behavior. For
growth, students were allowed to make errors in the early labs. This was followed by
discussion of common mistakes and misconceptions. In essence I had to allow the
students to fail early in their attempts to allow them to experience more success later.
As a whole this experience has taught me that taking a chance on a new idea
can lead to a positive outcome. Students like to actively participate and not just watch
what goes on. By developing a model that has the students play an important role in
their own learning, a sense of ownership takes hold and allows them to explore their
own ideas which otherwise may have sat idle. This too should lead to better problem
solving skills in the real world application as they will surely be faced with adversity. In
closing I posed a question to my students asking for their independent thoughts on how

38

the whole QPOE model labs and Gradual Release ideas affected them (Appendix 10)
Q: How did you like the labs as a whole? What other things could we have done
differently to make learning more enjoyable?
“As a whole they were a good way to help us understand the units. I liked them. You
could do more hands on stuff between labs. Otherwise, the class and learning was
fun.”
“Keep everything the same, I learned very well from these labs.”
“I enjoyed all of the labs overall. I learned a lot of new things from them and I only had
one small amount of confusion for reasons that had nothing to do with the labs given,
But, my confusion dissipated after I realized my problem/concern.”
“I loved the labs. They were fun and educational. These don’t usually mix.”

Even though the students had their own favorite labs, as indicated by the survey,
we may have created a few more true scientists in the world.

39

APPENDICES

40

Appendix 1 Parental Consent and Student Assent Form
Dear Students and Parents/Guardians:
I would like to take this opportunity to welcome you back to school and invite you to
participate in a research project,
, which I will conduct as a part of the Physical
Science program this Semester. My name is Mr. Trevor Schmachtenberger. I am your
science teacher for the second semester and I am also a master’s degree student at
Michigan State University. Researchers are required to provide a consent form like this to
inform you about the study, to convey that participation is voluntary, to explain risks and
benefits of participation, and to empower you to make an informed decision. You should
feel free to ask the researchers any questions you may have.
What is the purpose of this research? I have been working on effective ways to teach our
Scientific method unit, and I plan to study the results of this teaching approach on student
comprehension and retention of the material. The results of this research will contribute to
teacher’s understanding about the best way to teach about science topics. Completion of
this research project will also help me to earn my master’s degree in Michigan State
University’s College of Natural Science.
What will students do? Students will participate in the instructional unit about the Scientific
Method. Students will complete the usual assignments, laboratory experiments and
activities, class demonstrations and pretest/posttest just as you do for any other unit of
instruction. There are no unique research activities and participation in this study will not
increase or decrease the amount of work that students do. I will simply make copies of
student’s work for research purposes. This project will take place in Fall of 2013 and
continue throughout the first marking period (9 weeks). I am asking for permission from
both students and parents/guardians (one parent/guardian) is sufficient) to use copies of
student work for my research purposes.
What are the potential benefits? My reason for doing this research is to learn more about
improving the quality of science instruction. I won’t know about the effectiveness of my
teaching methods until I analyze my research results. If the results are positive, I can apply
the same teaching methods to other science topics taught in this course, and you will
benefit by better learning and remembering of course content. I will report the results in my
master’s thesis so that other teachers and their students can benefit from my research.
What are the potential risks? There are no foreseeable risks associated with completing
course assignments, laboratory experiments and activities, class demonstrations, and
pretest/posttests. In fact, completing coursework should be very beneficial to students.
41

Another person will store the consent forms (where you say “ yes” or “no”) in a locked file
cabinet that will not be opened until after I have assigned the grades for this marking
period. That way I will not know who agrees to participate in the research until after grades
are issued. In the meantime, I will save all of the written work. Later I will analyze the
written work for students who have agreed to participate in the study and whose parents
/guardians have consented.
How will privacy and confidentiality be protected? Information about you will be protected
to the maximum extent allowable by law. Student’s names will not be reported in my
master’s thesis or in any other dissemination of the results of this research. Instead, the
data will consist of class averages and samples of student work that will not include names.
After I analyze the data to determine class averages and choose samples of student work for
presentation in the thesis, I will destroy the copies of student’s original assignments, tests,
etc. The only people who will have access to the data are me, my thesis committee at MSU,
and the Institutional Review Board at MSU. The data will be stored on password-protected
computers (during the study) and in locked file cabinets in Dr. Heidemann’s locked office at
MSU (after the study) for at least three years after the study.
What are your rights to participate, say no, or withdraw? Participation in this research is
completely voluntary. You have the right to say “no”. You may change your mind at any
time and withdraw. If either the student or parent/guardian requests to withdraw, the
student’s information will not be used in this study. There are no penalties for saying “no”
or choosing to withdraw.
Who can you contact with questions and concerns? If you have concerns or questions about
this study, please don’t hesitate to contact:
Mr. Trevor
Schmachtenberger
Greenville High School
111N. Hillcrest
Greenville Mich. 48838
schmacht@greenville.k12
.mi.us
616225-1000x8148

Dr. Merle Heidemann
118 North Kedzie Lab
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Mich. 48824
heidma2@msu.edu
517432-2152x107

42

If you have questions or concerns regarding your role as a research participant, would like to
obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you
may contact, anonymously if desired, MSU Human Research Protection Program at:
irb@msu.edu
How should I submit this consent form? Please complete the attached form. Both the
student and parent/guardian must sign the form. Please return with your student a form
indicating interest either way. Please label on the outside the following information:
Consent Form: Trevor Schmachtenberger
Greenville High School: Science Department

Parents/guardians should complete this following consent information:
I voluntarily agree to have _________________________________ participate in this study.
(Student Name)
Please check all that apply:
Data:
______ I give Trevor Schmachtenberger permission to use data generated from my child’s work in class
for his thesis project. All data shall remain confidential.
______ I do not wish to have my child’s work in this thesis project. I acknowledge that my child’s work
will be graded in the same manner regardless of their participation in this research.
Photography, audio taping, or videotaping:
______ I give Trevor Schmachtenberger permission to use photos, or videotapes of my child in the class
room doing work related to this thesis project. I understand that my child will not be identified.
_______I do not wish to have my child’s images used at any time during this thesis project.

Signatures: _______________________________________
(Parent Signature)

_________
(Date)

_______________________________________
(Student Signature)

_________
(Date)

43

Appendix 2 Pretest/Posttest for Scientific Inquiry
Name__________________ Hr. ___

Use the following data/ information to answer the questions to follow.
A clam farmer has been keeping records concerning the water temperature and the
number of clams developing from fertilized eggs. The data are recorded below.
Table 7 Data for Water Temperature and Developing Clams
Water Temperature in Degrees
Celsius
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50

Number of Developing Clams
75
90
120
140
75
40
15
0

1) Make an observation of the above situation and ask a question about it.
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
2) Propose a Hypothesis for the situation listed above.
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
3) Identify four controls/variables that might influence your hypothesis.
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
44

______________________________________________________________

4) Setup an experiment that will test the hypothesis that you came up with.
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

5) Provide a written description that summarizes the data in the example given.
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

6) Provide Claim-Evidence-Reasoning for determining the accuracy of the
Hypothesis.
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

45

Appendix 3 Rubric for Pretest/Posttest
The following Rubric served as a guide for determining Pretest/Posttest scores. This
could also serve as a guide to labs in the future.
Table 8 Learning Objective Rubric

Section

Description

Point Value

Learning Objective
A

Relevant, one
sentence, testable

0-2

Learning Objective
B

Hypothesis relates
to observation,
testable, full
sentence
List 4 factors that
are controls or
variables.

0-2

Learning Objective
D

List of steps,
producing same
outcome.

0-2

Learning Objective
E

Collect and analyze
the experiments
data. Put into
summary.
Provide an answer
with support. Show
results.

0-2

Learning Objective
C

Learning Objective
F

0-2

0-2

Total Score

46

Student Score

Appendix 4 Lab 1: Study of Motion
Name
Velocity and Acceleration

Goal: Illustrate and perform an example of constant velocity. Show me what constant velocity looks
like.

Knowledge Probe:
Prior/Personal

Secondary

(speed, velocity, acceleration, formulas, graphs)

Figure 7 Knowledge Probe Information
•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

47

Guidelines:
There is a 30 meter course marked off in 5 meter increments.
Groups consist of 7 people.
Develop the investigation plan (numbered, step by step directions).
There are enough timers for each member of your group.
Observe and record all data, including qualitative data.

Investigation Plan: attach lined paper

Observations:

Once all data is collected…

Question: DID YOU MOVE AT A CONSTANT VELOCITY?

Prediction: I predict

because

.

Data Analysis: Graphs & Calculations
Two graphs: Distance vs Time and Speed vs Time

48

Figure 8. Distance vs. Time Graph

Calculations –

Figure 9. Speed vs. Time Graph

Data Analysis Summary 49

Explanation:

Claim –

Evidence –

Reasoning –

Prior Knowledge -

Fair Test -

50

Science Concepts -

Knowledge from Others -

Evaluation:
What are the sources of error?

What would you do differently next time?

How confident are you in your results? (see confidence chart)

What surprised you?

51

Appendix 5 Lab 2: Heat Transfer Lab
Name __________________________________________ Date _____________________ Hour _____
Question:
What materials are insulators and what materials are conductors of heat energy?

Figure 10. Student Knowledge Probe
Prior Knowledge

Scientific Ideas (Research/Article) Knowledge

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Prediction:
I predict ___________________________________________________________________ are heat
insulators and _______________________________________________________________________
are heat conductors because ____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
______.
Investigation Plan:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Put 200 ml of hot water into the aluminum can.
Measure the initial temperature of the water and record at time 0.
Start the timer and begin to gently stir the water.
Measure and record the temperature of the water every minute for 5 minutes.
52

5. When you are not measuring, constantly stir the water.
6. When the five minutes are up, dump out the water.
7. Repeat the process with the foam cup, plastic cup, and the glass beaker.

Figure 11 Observations of Data
Time (minutes)

Aluminum

Foam

Plastic

Glass

0
1
2
3
4
5

Data Analysis:
Calculate the amount of energy lost by the water from each type of container.
Heat Energy Lost = mass of water x ᐃ temperature x specific heat
•
•

1 ml of water has a mass of 1 gram so 200 ml is ____________ grams
T is the change in temperature and ᐃT=final temperature - initial temperature

•

specific heat capacity of water = 4.18 J/g ᐤC

Figure 12 Data Analysis
Container
Material

m = mass

ᐃT = Tf-Ti

(g)

(ᐤC)

53

C=specific heat
(4.18 J/g ᐤC )

Heat Lost (J)
ᐃH = m x ᐃT x C

Data Analysis Continued:
Create graphs illustrating the results of your investigation. Be sure to include: title, color coded key,
labeled axises, numbered increments, and easy to read lines or graphs.

Figure 13 Graph One

Figure 14 Graph Two

54

Data Analysis Summary:

Based on the data and graphs, summarize the data.

1. What material lost the most heat energy and how do you know?

2. Which material(s) appear to be heat conductors and how do you know?

3. What material lost the least heat energy and how do you know?

4. Which material(s) appear to be heat insulators and how do you know?

Explanation---Graphic Organizer
A claim is an answer to our lab investigation’s question (see front page).
Evidence includes data/numbers from tables and/or graphs (source).
Reasoning includes:
o
o
o
o

explanation of why your data is valid evidence
connection to scientific ideas (knowledge probes)
ideas and evidence from other groups
support of why your test was fair/trustworthy or not

55

Figure 15 Step Organizer

Explanation: (see graphic organizer)

56

In paragraph format, write a claim (answer) to our lab investigation’s question (see front page).
Support your answer with evidence (data/numbers from tables and graphs).
Explain your evidence with reasoning (why it’s valid, if it’s trustworthy, connect to science & others).

_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

57

Evaluation:
1. What are the sources of error in your investigation?

2. What could you do better next time?

3. How confident are you in your results and why? SEE CONFIDENCE CHART!

Application:
1. What material, from those studied in our investigation, might you choose for keeping your drink
cold on a hot summer day? Why?

2. How might the materials in a home, think of those studied in our investigation, affect heat loss
in the winter? Why?

58

Appendix 6 Lab3: Study of Waves
Name

______ Date

Hour

Goal: How does the movement of sound waves through different materials affect the sounds we hear?
Notice the variations in sound when waves travel through different materials. Infer what property of
the materials cause the sound waves to produce different sound.

Knowledge Probe: What factors affect the speed of sound? What is the order of increasing
density of the materials that you are testing?

Prior/Personal

Secondary (your article or research)

Figure 16 Student Knowledge Probe
•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Guidelines:
150 ml beakers (5)

59

water
corn syrup
vegetable oil
Other (?)
pencil

Investigation Plan: attach lined paper

Data and Observations:
Sound Waves through Materials (Time or pitch)

Figure 17 Material Data
Beaker
Water
Vegetable Oil
Corn Syrup
Empty
Other substance

Once all data is collected…

Question: Did you hear a difference in the matter.

Prediction: I predict

because

.

Graph what you think the sound of each matter would look like as the waves are transmitted through it.

60

Figure 18 Sound Wave Graph

Data Analysis Summary -

Explanation:

Claim –
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

61

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Evidence - ____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Reasoning –

Prior Knowledge _____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Fair Test ___________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
Science Concepts _____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Knowledge from Others_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
62

Evaluation:

What are the sources of error?

_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
What would you do differently next time?

_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
How confident are you in your results? (see confidence chart)

_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

What surprised you?

_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
63

Conclude and Apply

List the materials in the beakers in order of increasing density.

_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Infer how the pitch of the sound changes as the density of the material in the beaker increases.

_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

How does the density of the material in the beaker affect how long the sound continued to be heard
after the beaker was tapped?

64

Appendix 7
Survey for Mr. Schmachtenberger’s Labs used in Scientific Method Unit
This survey will aide Mr. Schmachtenberger in gathering information on student opinions of the labs
that were used throughout this unit. Your responses will remain with me and no one else. Answer the
questions truthfully and think before writing an answer.
Which of the activities in this unit did you enjoy the most?

Which of the activities do you feel you learned the most from?

Which activities made you think the most, you had to apply your brain to the application?

How did you enjoy designing your own scientific method lab for paper towels?

What did you like most about this unit in general?

On a scale of 1-5 (1= low with 5 = highest score)

How prepared were you for the pretest that was given? ______
How prepared were you for the posttest that was given? ______
How well do you think that you know the scientific method? ______
Did you enjoy the three labs that were completed in the first unit ______
Rank in order the labs (place a 3 by your favorite lab)
Take into account:

•

Interest – did you enjoy the activity as we worked
65

•

Confusion – were instructions hard to follow, or not enough information

•

Time allowed to complete – too much or too little

Table 9
Score (3-1)

Activity Ranking Table
Lab Name

Please suggest how to make it better.

Velocity and
Acceleration

Heat Transfer Lab

Wave Energy Lab

How did you like the labs as a whole? What other things could we have done differently to make
learning more enjoyable?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

66

Appendix 8
Figure 19 Draft for Students-----QPOE2 Investigation Rubric for Labs

Goal: This is what we are trying to do.

Knowledge Probe (5 points) boxes are filled in completely - This indicates what I already
know about a subject including secondary information from an outside source.

Guidelines (Given): These are the given instructions/details of your experiment and what
information you have to work with. Included in this are the materials needed for the
discovery.

Investigation Plan (3 points): The detailed information piece that describes in detail how
I will proceed with the investigation. It leaves nothing to the imagination and everything is
written out in well established steps. 10 steps for this motion lab. Repeatable, possibly
drawings, all things clear and controlled.

Observations (3 points) – Data table is set up in a neat orderly fashion that makes sense
Contains, labels, units, data….
Quantitative (numbers) actual data

67

Qualitative- descriptions using your 5 senses

Question:

Prediction/Hypothesis (2points) - The main idea of my investigation. The question is what
I want to know. Serves to guide my investigation. Is it humanly possible and if so, explain
why.

Data Analysis Graphs and Calculations—

Graph (5 points x number of graphs) Clearly shows title, labels units, lines and or plots.
Color lines and points may be taken into account. Neatness and using the entire graphing
area are taken into account.

Calculations ( 2 Points) Show your work, Formula and calculations were shown on the lab or
attached sheet indicating the student understands how to collect and calculate data.

Support: ( 2 points each segment)
Claim – Answer to the question --Claims
Claims are statements that answer your original
question. The stronger the better. No weak statements allowed!!!!
•

Evidence – Refer to the graphs and data tables and put your personal
explanation on the data that you have collected. The evidence is all of the
scientific data that supports your claim. The claim is usually one sentence in
length. It must be accurate, specific, and completely answer the question.
Reasoning – Reasoning is the explanation that connects your claim to the
evidence that supports it. It shows why the data you chose counts as evidence.

68

Explanation (1 point each per question) acts as a “conclusion” of your experiment.
Incorporate all of the following in your explanation if you want full credit…..

Prior Knowledge
Fair Test
Science Concepts
Knowledge from Others

Evaluation (1 point each per question)
What are the sources of error?
How would you correct anything that you think went wrong?

What would you do differently next time?
Could you have done this experiment better and if so, how?

How confident are you in your results?
A strong argument or hypothesis has good background support.

What surprised you?
Anything you did not expect?

Group participation (5) - Teams constructively worked together to form a planned
procedure and followed through on it.

69

Appendix 9
Results of: Survey for Mr. Schmachtenberger’s Labs Used in Thesis Exploration
All students in my classes completed the in-class survey and questionnaire form.
Students were asked the following questions; and answers varied per student.
Table 10 represents the student responses to three questions. Note that
not all twenty students responded to each question. In interpreting the table,
student reactions varied.
Table 10 Student Survey of Lab Activities
Motion Lab
Activity 1
1

Heat Lab
Activity 2
7

Waves Lab Activity
3
8

Which of the activities did you feel you
learned the most from?

4

6

5

Which activities made you think the
most, you had to apply your brain to the
application?

8

2

6

Which of the activities in these units did
you enjoy the most?

In Table 11, students were asked a series of questions regarding their preparedness
and reaction to the scientific method. Scores ranged from a low of 1 to a high of 5.

70

Table 11 Student Survey of Preparation for Pretest/Posttest and Use of Scientific
Method
1 -Low
How prepared were you for the
pretest that was given?

How prepared were you for the
posttest that was given?

How well do you think that you
know the scientific method?

Did you enjoy the three labs that
were completed in the Semester
unit

2

3

4

5 - High

Out of 20

20
4

3

5

3

5

0

2

3

9

6

0

0

7

9

4

20
20

20
3

1

4

6

5

The instructor requested the students to rank order the 3 labs. In Table 12,
interestingly Lab 3, The Study of Waves, was the students’ favorite.
Table12 Preference Rank Order of Labs
Score (3-1)
Average

Lab Name

Velocity and Motion

1.31

Please suggest how to make it better.
Group comparison of results, more trials
Maybe do it on the track next time

(25/19)
Heat Transfer Lab

2.26
(43/19)
Wave Frequency Lab

2.53
(48/19)

Have you pick our partners
Like it the way it is
Use more containers
Too little time,
Funnest lab we experimented with conduction,
do not change.
Overall good…
Use other containers, not just beakers
Interesting and fun…
Perfect, we took notes and did some
experimenting…..

What did you like most about this Semester in general?

71

•

Interest – did you enjoy the activity as we worked

•

Confusion – were instructions hard to follow, or not enough information

•

Time allowed to complete – too much or too little

Q: How did you like the labs as a whole? What other things could we have done differently to make
learning more enjoyable?
“As a whole they were a good way to help us understand the units. I liked them. You could do more
hands on stuff between labs. Otherwise, the class and learning was fun.”
“Keep everything the same, I learned very well from these labs.”
“I enjoyed all of the labs overall. I learned a lot of new things from them and I only had one small
amount of confusion for reasons that had nothing to do with the labs given, But, my confusion
dissipated after I realized my problem/concern.”

“I loved the labs. They were fun and educational. These don’t usually mix.”

72

Appendix 10 Greenville High School

111 N. Hillcrest Street ● Greenville, MI 48838-1599
Voice: (616) 754-3681 ● Fax: (616) &54-1994 ● Website: www.Greenville.k12.mi.us/schools/ghs

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Dear Mr. Steven Smith,
The purpose of this letter is to give my approval to Mr. Trevor Schmachtenberger to conduct his
master’s thesis research project, An Inquiry approach to the Scientific Method, here at Greenville High
School for the 2013-2014 school year. I understand that this research poses no foreseeable risks to the
students and that Mr. Schmachtenberger will take every possible effort to protect the identity of the
students who volunteer to be a part of the study. If you have any questions or need to contact me for
any reason, please email me at: wrightj@greenville.k12.mi.us or call (616) 225-1000.

Jeff Wright, Greenville High School Principal

73

REFERENCES

74

REFERENCES
ACT Research and Policy Brief, June,2013. Retrieved July 17, 2014, from
http//www.act.org/research/researchers/briefs/pdf/2013-22.pdf
ACT Profile Report-State, Michigan Graduating Class 2012. (n.d.). ACT. Retrieved May
13, 2014, from http://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2012/pdf/profile/Michigan.pdf
Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming Science Teaching: What research says about
inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1-12.
Barrows, L.H. (2006). In a Brief History on Inquiry: From Dewey to Standards. Journal of
Science Teacher Education, (17), 265-278
Bell, Randy; Smetana, Lara and Binns, Ian. (2005) Simplifying Inquiry Instruction. The
Science Teacher. October pp. 30-33.
Blakeslee, T. Kahan, J. (1996) Michigan Science Education Guidebook, Michigan
Department of Education.
Boynton, C. (2003, September 2). Cooking Up the Scientific Method. Yale-New Haven
Teachers Institute. Retrieved July 1, 2014, from
http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/2009/3/09.03.02.x.html
Brown, J. H., & Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Assessing hands-on science: a teacher's guide
to performance assessment. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press.
Clark, Sandra (2014) Avoiding the Blank Stare: Teacher Training with the Gradual
Release of Responsibility in Mind. English Teaching Forum, (2), 28-35
Cobern, William, Schuster, David and Adams, Betty (2010) Experimental Comparison of
Inquiry and Direct Instruction in Science. Research in Science and Technical
Education (28), 81-96
College Readiness Standards-Science. (n.d.). ACT. Retrieved May 9, 2014, from
http://www.act.org/standard/pdf/science.pdf
DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: implications for practice.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Dunbar, B. (2008, February 7). Scientific Method. NASA. Retrieved July 1, 2014, from
http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/plantgrowth/reference/Scientific_Met
hod.html#.U7MjSPldUSYrd...

75

Fisher, Douglas (2006) Effective Use of the Gradual Release of Responsibility Model,
Author Monographs, http://www.epdmh.com/mhpd_assets/Effective_Use_Douglas_Fisher.pdf
How Science Works: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_01, (2012).
Jeanpierre, B. (2006). What teachers report about their inquiry practices. Journal of
Elementary Science Education, 18(1), 57-67.
MME Proficiency Data State Snapshot. (n.d.). State of Michigan. Retrieved June 11,
2013, from
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/Proficiency_Data_Snapshot_425357_7
.pdf
Musante, Susan. (2009) A Dynamic Alternative to the Scientific Method. Bioscience
59.1
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices,
crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington D.C.: The National
Academies Press.
National Research Council. National Science Education Standards. (1996).
Washington: The National Academies Press.
NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Quigley,, C., Jeff, M., Deaton, C., Cook, M., & Padilla, M. (2011). Challenges to Inquiry
Teaching and Suggestions for How to Meet Them. Science Educator , 20(1), 5561. Retrieved June 10, 2014, from the ERIC database.
State Summary Report. (2013, June 19). State of Michigan. Retrieved May 11, 2014,
from
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/StateSummaryReport_425358_7.pdf
VAEI, Van Andel Education Institute. "QPOE Inquiry Model" Grand Rapids, MI: VAEI,
2013.—. "QPOE_2." Grand Rapids, MI: VAEI, 2013.

76