. «an... it

an.

{.13 I}...

z." r ‘5!

1... hi...

I.
:nwrivys a.

mi“..- 3.
.I

‘1",— a
It. I‘aznaa‘Q-i

9.513..“
. 4:53

J.

 

“ .h I. o.’~..-—Q.l~‘l:§1~£. n"l
.....f....h... ‘1};

I ‘

H3313 L'BRARY
2 Michigan State
.ooq University

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

INQUIRY-BASED INSTRUCTION IN SECOND GRADE
CLASSROOMS IN HIGH AND LOW SOCIOECONOMIC
STATUS SETTINGS

presented by

Alison Knight Billman

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Doctoral degree in Educational Psychology

 

 

74M 7% amp

Major Professor' 5 Signature

/1 £0

Date

MSU is an affirmative-action. equal—opportunity employer

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 KlProj/AocEPres/ClRC/Dateouejndd

IN QUIRY-BASED INSTRUCTION IN SECOND GRADE CLASSROOMS IN HIGH
AND LOW SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS SETTINGS

By

Alison Knight Billman

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Educational Psychology

2008

ABSTRACT

INQUIRY-BASED INSTRUCTION IN SECOND GRADE CLASSROOMS IN HIGH
AND LOW SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS SETTINGS

By
Alison Knight Billman

Inquiry-based instruction has a long history in education. It is a method of
instruction that has been recommended across theoretical perspectives and across and
within subject matter domains. Indeed, inquiry-based instruction is included in language
arts, science, and social studies state standards. However, school districts face increasing
demands that may lower expectations for instruction in content areas in which inquiry-
based methods are more commonly recommended. Additionally, the implementation of
inquiry-based instruction, like so many other kinds of instruction, may be complicated by
socio-economic factors. Little is known about the amount or characteristics of inquiry-
based instruction implemented in primary grades. This descriptive study sought to
describe the degree and characteristics of inquiry-based instruction implemented in
second grade classrooms and to describe any differences, if present, in the
implementations of inquiry-based instruction in high- and low-SES classrooms. The
Inquiry-based Observation Protocol (Billman, 2006) was the primary instrument used to
document instruction.

Results from this study indicate there is little inquiry-based instruction
implemented in second grade classrooms. Inquiry-based instruction was observed during
language arts, science, and social studies instruction with more inquiry-based instruction
observed during language arts instruction, followed by science, and then, social studies.

Proportionately, more social studies instruction used inquiry-based instructional methods.

Language arts inquiry-based instruction contributed the smallest proportion of minutes to
the overall total observed in that domain. Although six phases of the inquiry process were
observed, nearly half of all observed inquiry-based minutes were spent collecting data.
Reporting was the second most observed phase and constituted the greatest amount of
time spent in social studies inquiry-based instruction. The least amount of time was
devoted to analyzing or reflecting.

When inquiry-based instruction was observed, there were more minutes devoted
to this type of instruction in high-SES classrooms; however, that difference did not reach
a level of statistical significance. Differences between groups lay in the characteristics of
inquiry-based instruction. High-SES classrooms were more likely to give children
opportunities to contribute to, or make decisions that determined the directions of the
investigations, to make choices, and to compose text. These SES differences mirror
results documented in other studies describing SES differences in classrooms and suggest
that, in this case, inquiry-based instruction is implemented in ways that support social
reproduction (Anyon, 1981; Duke, 2000).

A number of limitations as well as directions for future research are discussed in
light of these findings. The findings reported in this study suggest that further research is
needed to understand what teachers know about inquiry-based instruction and how to

better help them implement this method of instruction.

Copyright by
ALISON K. BILLMAN
2008

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Dissertations are not completed in isolation and this dissertation is no exception.
During the past five years I have benefited from the mentoring and expertise of many
while learning to appreciate the power of collaboration. I especially value the mentoring
and support of my advisor, Nell K. Duke. Through her expert guidance I have developed
as a thinker and researcher and will continue to be impacted by all that I have learned in
her company. She, along with the other members of my committee, Dr. Jere Brophy, Dr.
Kimberley Maier, and Dr. Richard Prawatt, deserve special thanks for working with me
to the successful completion of this dissertation. Additional thanks go to my colleagues
Karen Ames, Erin Wibbens, and Jamie Mikeska who were instrumental in my
development and piloting of the Inquiry-based Observation Protocol, the primary
research instrument for this study.

Many others have extended my thinking in a variety of ways. I have had the
support of mentors who generously listened, joined in conversation, and challenged me
around a multitude of ideas. Dr. Jere Brophy’s consistent push to root out the essential
questions, Rand Spiro’s encouragement to explore how my processing of ideas relates to
my creation and processing of art, and Susan Florio-Ruane’s help to identify the unique
features of my style of teaching first grade have all contributed to building a framework
for thinking about my work. Additionally, I have had the opportunity to work and
develop enduring friendships with some very special people. Katie Hilden, Annie Moses,

and Kristen Perry are my adopted cohort of smart people, the Endnotes are my musical

pals, and Donna Pressley, took charge of directing my Survive the Dissertation
Committee.

Special thanks go to my four children, Jeff, Greg, Eric, and Brieanne. Embarking
on this journey involved many changes including dismantling their childhood home.
They have showered me with the love, hugs, groceries, and encouragement that has
sustained my momentum as a doctoral student. And finally, I would like to honor my
father and mother who, by example, have always reminded me that life is for living

enthusiastically and age is no deterrent for embarking on new adventures.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... x
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1
Factors Supporting Implementation of Inquiry-based Instruction ............................ 2
Factors Complicating the Implementation of Inquiry-based Instruction ................... 5
Research Describing Inquiry-based Instruction ......................................................... 6
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................ 9
Defining Inquiry-based Instruction ............................................................................ 10
CHAPTER THREE
METHODS ...................................................................................................................... 16
Participants ................................................................................................................. 16
Overview .............................................................................................................. 16
District and School Selection Procedures ............................................................ 17
Teacher Selection Procedures .............................................................................. 19
Data Collection .......................................................................................................... 21
Inquiry-based Observation Protocol .................................................................... 22
Observations ........................................................................................................ 27
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................. 30
Observation Summaries Database: Amount of Inquiry-based Instruction .......... 31
Inquiry-based Practices Database ........................................................................ 32
Activity Profile Database: Characteristics of Inquiry-based Instruction ............. 32
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS ........................................................................................................................ 34
Amount of Inquiry-based Instruction ......................................................................... 35
IBI in the Content Areas ...................................................................................... 37
Implementation of Inquiry Process Phases ................................................................ 44
Descriptions of IBI Phase Implementation .......................................................... 45
Characteristics of IBI ................................................................................................. 50
Inquiry Related Language .................................................................................... 50
Context of Instruction .......................................................................................... 51
Roles and Responsibilities ................................................................................... 52
Classroom Discourse Practices ............................................................................ 53
Text-based Products: Authors and Audiences ..................................................... 53

vii

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................. 57
Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 57
Limitations ................................................................................................................. 64
Recommendations for Further Research ...... . .............................................................. 66

APPENDICES ...................................... 69
Appendix A Principal Nomination Guide .............................................................. 70
Appendix B Inquiry-based Observation Protocol .................................................. 72
Appendix C Description of IBI Lessons ................................................................ 79
Appendix D Description of Text—based Products ................................................... 88
Appendix E Tables ................................................................................................. 93
Appendix F Figures ................................................................................................ 1 15

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 1 19

viii

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

Table 9

Table 10

Table 1 I

Table 12

Table 13

Table 14

Table 15

LIST OF TABLES

School District Statistics ................................................................................ 94

Years of Teaching Experience ....................................................................... 95

Scales and Categories for Coding the [BOP .................................................. 96

Distribution of IBI Minutes across Classrooms ............................................. 100
Distribution of All IBI Minutes According to Domain and SES ................... 102
Distribution of IBI Minutes across the IBI Process Phases ........................... 103
Characteristics of Instruction: Inquiry-related Vocabulary ........................... 105
Characteristics of Instruction: Use of Inquiry-related Language ................... 107
Characteristics of Instruction: Context .......................................................... 108
Characteristics of Instruction: Roles and Responsibilities ............................. 109
Characteristics of Instruction: Classroom Discourse Practices ..................... 1 10
Characteristics of Instruction: Composing Text-based Products ................... 111
Characteristics of Instruction: Recording Text-based Products ..................... 112
Characteristics of Instruction: Audiences ...................................................... 1 13
IBI Instruction and Teachers’ Years of Experience ....................................... 114

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Distribution of language arts IBI minutes across the phases of the inquiry
process ............................................................................................................ 116

Figure 2 Distribution of science IBI minutes across the phases of the inquiry
process ............................................................................................................ 1 17

Figure 3 Distribution of social studies IBI domain minutes across the phases of the
inquiry process ............................................................................................... 118

CHAPTER ONE

Introduction

Inquiry-based instruction has a long and elaborate history in education. It is a
method of instruction that has been recommended across theoretical perspectives and
across and within subject matter domains (e.g., Dewey 1910; Joyce, 1972; Kilpatrick
1918; Llewellyn, 2002; Postman, & Weingartner,1969; Wells, 2000; Zuckerman,
Chudinova, & Khavkin, 1998). Today there are multiple definitions and interpretations of
inquiry-based instruction (e.g., Abd-El-Khalik, Boujaoude, Duschl, Mamlok-Naaman,
Hofstein, Niaz, et al., 2004). In fact, different terms are used to identify very similar
instructional approaches: for example, project-based, inquiry-based, integrated
curriculum, applied learning, and research workshop (e.g., Alvarado & Herr, 2003;
Diffily & Sassman, 2002; Erickson, 2003; Katz & Chard, 2000; Rogovin, 2001; Saul,
Reardon, Pearce, Dieckman, & Nuetze, 2002; Short, Schroeder, Laird, Kauffman,
Ferguson, & Crawford, 1996; Wolk, 1994). Many of these terms describe similar step-by-
step inquiry processes initiated by a question, followed by a number of research related
steps that includes a report of the findings. The term, inquiry-based instruction, is used in
this paper to refer to this general definition. (See Chapter Two for a more in-depth
description of inquiry-based instruction.) At the same time, there are critical differences
across the explanations of these approaches, especially in the interpretations of the roles
of content, and the roles of teacher and children. Given how widely inquiry-based

instruction is recommended, along with the multiplicity of definitions and interpretations

of this method of instruction, to what degree and how do teachers implement inquiry-
based instruction in second grade classrooms?
Factors Supporting Implementation of Inquiry-based Instruction

Many factors contribute to or support the implementation of inquiry-based
instruction. Some propose inquiry-based instruction as the method of choice for teaching
certain subjects. For example, the hallmark of science curriculum movements during the
late 1950’s and the 1960’s, inquiry is still considered a critical feature of science
instruction (e.g., Etheredge & Ruditsky, 2003; Joyce & Wei], 1972; National Research
Council (NRC), 1996, 2000). Science educators’ concern is that children learn science
content and also learn how to engage in the analytical thinking processes that scientists
use. Inquiry-based methods are used to engage children in the practices of science in
order to learn scientific concepts and to learn scientific habits of mind (e. g., Etheredge &
Ruditsky, 2003).

Generally speaking inquiry-based instruction is also noted for its potential to
trigger or support known contributors to learning and achievement. As a case in point,
inquiry is recommended as a method that promotes motivation to engage in learning.
That is, it is considered a method that tends to create a desire to learn (e.g., Blumenfeld,
Soloway, Marx, Krajcik, Guzdial, & Palincsar, 1991; Brophy, 2004; Jalongo, 2007).
Capitalizing on the power of a child’s interest to motivate learning, some variations of
inquiry-based methods involve children in asking personally relevant questions—
questions that are rooted in the interests of the child (Mills, O’Keefe, & Jennings, 2004;
Rogovin, 2001; Wells, 2001). Researchers report that children who are motivated and

interested in the work of the classroom are more likely to show greater achievement.

(e.g., Hidi, 2001; Renninger, Hidi, & Krapp, 1992; Schiefele, 1998; Schraw, Flowerday,
& Leyman, 2001).

Another perceived benefit of inquiry-based instruction is the opportunity to
integrate curriculum subjects within one project or unit of study. Concept Oriented
Reading Instruction (CORI) is an example of integrated literacy and science instruction
designed to include inquiry processes. Specific lessons are planned for children to
personalize their work by asking their own questions related to the content being studied
(e.g., Guthrie, Van Meter, McCann, Wigfield, Bennett, Poundstone, et al., 1996; Guthrie,
Wigfield, & Perencevich, 2004). These questions guide reading choices as children ’
gather information to answer their questions and eventually report their findings. Because
CORI involves many practices, the success of CORI cannot necessarily be attributed to
inquiry methods or activating children’s interests; however it is important to note this
researched method of instruction has proven to increase children’ motivation and
achievement (e.g., Guthrie, Van Meter, McCann, Wigfield, Bennett, Poundstone, et al.,
1996; Guthrie, Wigfield, & Perencevich, 2004, Swan, 2003). In addition to the CORI
model of integrated instruction, other research suggests that integrating literacy and
content area instruction enhances children’s achievement in both ( Bristor, 1994;
Cervetti, Pearson, Barber, Hiebert, & Bravo, 2007; Pratt, & Pratt, 2004; Romance, &
Vitale, 1992; Roser, & Keehn, 2002; Sharnlin, 2001; Whitin, 2007).

Inquiry-based methods are also noted for opportunities for engaging children in
the kinds of reading and writing they will encounter in the world outside of school—
authentic literacy practices (e. g., Erickson, 2003). Research suggests that engaging

children in authentic literacy practices supports their literacy development (e. g., Nolan,

2001; Purcell-Gates, Duke, & Martineau, 2007; Purcell-Gates, Jacobson, & Degener,
2004). Considering the range of opportunities for incorporating authentic literacy
practices in an inquiry-based framework for teaching and learning, it is possible that this
method of instruction contributes positively to children’s engagement and achievement in
the classroom. Given this, and the range of other facets of inquiry-based instruction
argued to be beneficial to children, it is important to understand to what degree and how
inquiry practices are implemented.

The educational significance of inquiry-based instruction is underscored by
inclusion in curricula and in standard documents mandating curricula across the nation
(Academic Benchmarks, 2008). Specifically relevant to this study are the standards
documents that guide instruction in the state of Michigan. Inquiry-based instructional
methods have been included in the Michigan K-12 language arts, social studies, and
science standards for over 10 years (Michigan Department of Education, 2008). For
example, a 2004 second grade set of social studies standard reads as follows:

V.2.l Pose a question about life in their school, neighborhood, and local

community.

V.2.2 Gather and analyze information in order to answer the question posed.

V.2.3 Construct an answer to the question posed and support their answer with

evidence.

V.2.4 Report the results of their investigation. (Academic Benchmarks, 2008).

Inquiry-based instruction is a method of instruction that is recommended, and it is
an instructional method included in state standards. However, to date, few studies have

broadly examined whether inquiry-based methods are being implemented, how they are

being implemented, or to what degree they are being implemented across multiple
curricular domains.
Factors Complicating the Implementation of Inquiry-based Instruction

We do know that school districts across the nation are faced with meeting many
demands, sometimes including policy directives such as those of the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110). In meeting these demands some districts are
finding less time or are lowering expectations for including teaching of content area
subjects such as science and social studies in the primary grades (e. g., Dolph, Goldstein,
Lee, Lepori, Schneider, & Venkatesan, 2007; Saul, 2004). This may lead to less inquiry-
based instruction, especially when the subjects getting less attention are those for which
inquiry-based instruction is most commonly recommended. We do not know how much
time is allotted to inquiry-based, content area instruction in primary classrooms.

Implementation of inquiry-based instruction may be complicated by socio-
economic factors. Understanding the disparities in achievement of children from different
sectors of our society has concerned researchers for some time. Researchers attempting to
bring clarity to these issues have looked in schools across different socio-economic
settings. Reports of this research show there can be distinct differences in the curriculum,
teaching methods and opportunities to learn in schools serving populations of differing
socio-economic status (SES) (e.g., Anyon, 1981; Duke, 2000; Giroux, 1980; Pinar &
Bowers, 1992; Rist, 2000). For example, in a study that examined print environments and
experiences in first grade classrooms, not only were there significant differences in the
amount and kinds of literacy resources made available to children in high- and low-SES

classrooms, but the opportunities and experiences to use these materials were very

different (Duke, 2000). In high-SES classrooms Duke (2000) found a significantly
greater number of opportunities for children to write for audiences beyond the teacher.
Additionally, children in those settings were more likely to be afforded a choice of what
they read and wrote. While the Duke study did not examine inquiry-based instructional
methods, some advocate for inquiry-based instructional methods because they provide
children with more agency regarding what is studied and because of the opportunities to
read and write for authentic purposes. Thus there is some reason to think that whether,
and to what degree, inquiry-based practices are implemented may be distinctly different
in schools serving different populations. Given the possible differences in instruction due
to SES factors combined with multiple explanations and interpretations of inquiry-based
instruction, children may be experiencing very different kinds of learning with and about
inquiry-based practices.
Research Describing Inquiry-based Instruction

Implementing inquiry-based instruction is challenging for teachers and perhaps
even more so for inexperienced teachers (Mills, O’Keefe, & Jennings, 2004; Short,
Schroeder, Laird, Kauffman, Ferguson, & Crawford, 1996). For example, adopting
inquiry practices may involve adopting new ways of thinking about curriculum, as well
as new ways of teaching. That said, there is research demonstrating that inquiry-based
instruction results in significant learning gains (Gray, 2001; Klein, Hammrich, Bloom, &
Ragins, 2000; Schmidt, Gillen, Zollo, & Stone, 2002; Valadez & Freve, 2002). Even in a
situation in which language arts and science were not integrated, children who
experienced inquiry-based science outperformed their peers on standardized reading

achievement measures (Valadez & Freve, 2002).The results of research studies like this

one suggest that understanding the challenges of inquiry-based instruction, as well as
helping teachers to overcome those challenges and increase their use of inquiry-based
methods, may have positive results for children.

Researchers seeking to describe inquiry-based practices in classrooms have
generally compared approaches within one subject or content area, or have focused on
single implementations in single settings (e.g., Bolinger & Warren, 2007; Gray, 2001;
Hapgood, Magnusson, & Palincsar, 2004; Kallery & Psillos, 2002; Klein, Hammrich,
Bloom, & Ragins, 2000; McCarty, Wallace, Lynch, & Benally, 1991; Samarapungavan,
Mantzicopoulos, & Patrick, 2008; Veal & Elliott, 1996; Wells, 2001). Many of these
descriptions focus on science instruction. While some have focused on describing
specific aspects or persons involved in the inquiry others have described the
implementation of inquiry methods in general. For example, Hapgood, Magnusson, and
Palincsar (2004) described the implementation of an inquiry-based science unit in which
the purpose of the research was to understand second grade children’s abilities to provide
explanations. Similarly, in a study of kindergarten inquiry science, Samarapungavan,
Mantzicopoulos, and Patrick (2008) describe an inquiry life cycle unit in order to situate
their discussion of kindergartners’ science learning. In these studies, inquiry-based
instruction provides the context for the study, but it is not the focus.

There are some reports or descriptions of inquiry-based instruction in specific
settings (e.g., McCarty, Wallace, Lynch, & Benally, 1991; Kallery & Psillos, 2002; Veal
& Elliott, 1996). For example, Veal and Elliott (1996) researched science instructional
methods in rural settings by examining teacher knowledge of reformed science

practices—practices including the inquiry process. The purpose of the study was to

understand current practices and then to estimate the likelihood that teachers would
implement reformed science practice after they participated in professional development.
Analysis of personal interviews, surveys, and notes from the professional development
workshops showed that the teachers in this rural district were not familiar with the most
recent science curriculum standards or related inquiry-based teaching methods.
Additionally, teachers reported a lack of materials or funding to support hands-on
instruction. Implications from the research included recommendations for continued
science teacher education and professional development. This study gathered information
about the presence of inquiry-based practices through teacher interviews and surveys. It
did not examine science instruction as it took place in the classroom.

McCarty, Wallace, Lynch, and Benally (1991) focused on understanding cultural
differences in relationship to inquiry-based instructional practices. Their study of Navajo
classrooms describes the difficulties teachers faced, and the subsequent adaptations to
units of study required to successfully engage Navajo children in inquiry-based activities
or projects. While McCarty, Wallace, Lynch, and Benally’s study provides a rich
description of this particular set of inquiry practices, it does not look at inquiry practices
in general or across settings.

This study adds to the literature by examining the use of inquiry-based instruction
across multiple settings and multiple content areas. Specifically, the questions that guided
this research are: (1) To what degree is inquiry-based instruction being implemented in
2"d-grade classrooms and what are the characteristics of this instruction? (2) Are there
differences in the characteristics and amount of inquiry-based instruction implemented in

low- and high-SES classrooms? If so, what are those differences?

CHAPTER TWO

Literature Review

This study is informed by the theories and perspectives of socio-constructivism.
In this perspective learning is understood to be socially constructed; that is, situated in the
interactions of people, materials and tools, and the environment (Brown, Collins, &
Duguid, 1989; Greeno, Collins, & Resnick, 1996; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Rogoff, 1990;
Volet & Simone, 2001; Wells, 2000). In that sense, classrooms are dynamic and social
communities in which members have roles and responsibilities. Learning occurs as the
members participate in joint activities. Observing the ways that children and teachers
participate in the activities of the classroom, along with the discourse of the community,
provides insights into what is being studied, how it is being studied, and how the roles
and responsibilities of the members are enacted. Observations for this study were
conducted using the Inquiry-based Observation Protocol (IBOP) (Billman, 2006), a
protocol specifically informed by this theoretical perspective. This protocol is designed
for observers to collect information about teacher-student interactions during instruction,
the materials and tools being used, and the classroom environment.

Social reproduction theory provides a framework for examining inquiry-based
instruction in differing SES contexts. This theory seeks to explain the mechanisms that
perpetuate the stratified social structure of industrial societies (e.g., Nash, 2004).
Education, as a socially established and supported institution, is seen as contributing to
this hegemony. For social reproduction theorists the structure of schools and schooling

can allow social inequalities to persist rather than providing equal opportunities for

children regardless of SES (e.g., Giroux, 1980; Rist, 2000). Two explanations of social
inequalities in school settings that are particularly relevant to this study involve the
structure and use of school resources and teachers’ expectations or labeling of children
(e.g., Anyon, 1981; Habermann, 1991; Nash, 2004). Specifically, schools are organized
and the curriculum is crafted and delivered in ways that ensure members of any particular
group succeed in remaining or becoming prototypical members of their group (e. g., Rist,
2000). This may result in differences in the content of the curriculum as well as in how
that content is delivered in the classroom. Even when curriculum content is similar across
SES contexts, how it is taught and how children are given opportunities to learn may be
remarkably different (e. g., Anyon, 1981; Duke, 2000). Habermann (1991) explains what
he terms the pedagogy of poverty. Within this pedagogy the teachers’ interpretations of
their roles and responsibilities are closely related to their expectations of children’s
abilities and potential for success. It is possible that these interpretations are directly
linked to the roles and responsibilities that are then made, or not made, available to the
children in their classrooms. In that sense, social reproduction theories may explain the
differences found in the characteristics and degree of implementation of inquiry-based
instruction in different SES settings.
Defining Inquiry-based Instruction

Given the long history of inquiry-based instruction, it is understandable that
differing theoretical perspectives have exerted influence on how it is defined and enacted
in classrooms. John Dewey, one of the earliest advocates of this pedagogy, believed that
connecting meaningfill learning experiences to children’s lives provided a context for

deeper learning (Dewey, 1910, 1990). His discussions focused on inquiry in relationship

10

to real-life problems and experiences outside of school. Building on Dewey’s ideas,
William Kilpatrick elaborated on inquiry as a form of pedagogy in the project approach
(Kilpatrick, 1918). Later, inquiry provided the avenue for children to discover and
construct knowledge in Piagetian related pedagogies (Llewellyn, 2002). More recently,
discussions around inquiry-based methods highlight the apprenticeship-like nature of
children’s participation in communities of practice. In this perspective teachers are more
likely to be responsible for scaffolding children’s inquiry-based learning (e.g., Baker,
2004; DuVall, 2001; Harste & Leland, 1998; Magnusson & Palincsar, 2004; Pearce,
1999; Wells, 2000; Zuckerman, Chudinova, & Khavkin, 1998). These theorists explain
inquiry as a way of being in and experiencing the world. In that sense, the goals of
instruction are to foster children’s ability to use inquiry-based habits of mind and engage
in their own, personally relevant searches for understanding (e.g., Wells, 2000).

Many link inquiry-based instruction to the practice of science (e. g., Etheredge &
Rudinsky, 2003; Llewellyn, 2002). While the sciences strongly endorse inquiry, as
evidenced in the National Science Education Standards report, inquiry is also
recommended as a systematic process for answering questions pertaining to other
disciplines such as math, social studies, literature and philosophy (e. g., Audet & Jordan,
2005; Beach & Myers, 2001; Kennedy, 1996; National Research Council, 1996; Seigel &
Fonzi, 1995; Wilks, 1995).

A review of many descriptions of inquiry-based instruction reveals that this
method has consistently been described as instruction that uses a systematic or step-by-
step process of addressing one or more questions to frame teaching and learning

experiences. Most descriptions of inquiry-based instruction include at least three basic

ll

phases: questioning, researching, and reporting evidence-based claims. Many
explanations expand the phases by identifying and naming steps within the three broad
categories [e.g., researching divided into the steps of planning and data collection
(Billman, 2007; Llewellyn, 2002)]. Inquiry is described as a recursive process. Findings
or answers to one question may lead to a new question and a new investigation.
Additionally, the process for answering one question is often not strictly linear. For
example, the initial analysis of data may reveal a need to collect additional data. Rather
than moving forward to report findings, investigators might revisit the question or the
data collection plan in order to proceed with the investigation (Windschitl, 2004).

At the same time, descriptions of inquiry-based instruction vary in at least four
distinct ways. First, the roles of children and teachers are understood and actualized from
more to less responsibility for carrying out the process in relationship to the emphasis on
the process of inquiry (e.g., Hill, Stremmel, & Fu, 2005; Wells, 2001). Implementations
that tend to place a high degree of value or emphasis on content tend to place a greater
emphasis on the responsibility of the teacher for directing the inquiry (Etheredge &
Rudnitsky, 2003; Schmidt, Gillen, Zollo, & Stone, 2002; Their & Daviss, 2002; Worth &
Grollman, 2003). In contrast, those implementations that focus a greater degree of
emphasis on the process tend to extend responsibility for inquiry across the classroom
community. In those explanations teachers are responsible for modeling steps in the
process and/or coaching and scaffolding children’s experiences as the children gradually
assume greater responsibility for investigations (DuVall, 2001; Erickson, 2003; Gray,

2001; Wells, 2000). While endorsing learner directed classroom inquiry, the National

12

Research Council (2000) outlines these gradual variations in scaffolding and guidance in
relationship to science inquiry.

The second and third variations in descriptions of inquiry-based instruction relate
to establishing a context for inquiry-based instruction—whether more curriculum or out-
of-school based. The first of these two has to do with the origin of questions driving the
investigation. In some interpretations of inquiry-based instruction, the questions are
presented within curriculum materials or are determined by the teacher (e.g., Howe,
2002; Krajcik, Czemiak, & Berger, 1999; Martin, Sexton, & Franklin, 2005). In other
interpretations, questions are chosen by the classroom community (e. g., de B00, 1999;
Katz & Chard, 2000). Cecil and Lauritzen suggest that investigations or projects should
emerge from the “spontaneous interests of the child” (1994, p. 18). While the teacher can
suggest projects or investigations, the children’s choices take precedence. Questions in
classrooms implementing the Reggio Emilia approach emerge through the negotiation of
teachers and children during the everyday life of the classroom (Hill, Stremmel, & Fu,
2005). Other questions are rooted in relevant issues or problems that exist in the
community outside of the classroom (e.g., Comber, Thompson, & Wells, 2001).

A third variation—also related to the context of instruction—is found in how the
instruction is positioned in relationship to real world contexts. That is, there is variation
in whether the goals of inquiry focus on modeling and understanding content, or are
rooted in opportunities to understand phenomena that emerge from children’s day to day
experiences and questions about the world, or a combination of the two (e.g., Hill,
Stremmel, & F u, 2005; Howe, 2002; Krajcik, Czemiak, & Berger, 1999; National

Research Council, 2000; Wray, 1999).

13

Interestingly, a fourth variation in descriptions of inquiry-based instruction is
found in a subtle difference in the interpretation of the inquiry process. This variation
tends to present inquiry as a philosophical stance that emphasizes a questioning attitude
toward the world. In that sense, IBI inquiry-based instruction is less a specific process for
accomplishing teaching and learning of specific content, and more a guide for thinking
and learning, in general (Mills, 2001). For example, Cecil (1995) focuses inquiry on the
art of questioning, not to come to a conclusion or definitive answer, but to examine the
potential field of answers. While a sequential process might be followed, Cecil places
less emphasis on reporting exact findings.

Even as there is variation in descriptions and emphases in inquiry-based
instruction, there are also consistent features of inquiry-based instruction. Drawing on
those consistent features, inquiry-based instruction is defined for this study as instruction
in which the teacher engages children in projects or investigations through a systematic
or step by step process that includes establishing questions, collecting information, and
reporting evidence-based answers or conclusions. I have chosen this definition because
these features are represented across multiple explanations of inquiry-based instruction.

Given the variations in descriptions of inquiry-based instruction described above,
in this study I examine variation in individual implementations of inquiry-based
instruction. These variations fall broadly into two categories: 1) the distribution of roles
and responsibilities in the classroom and, 2) the context of the instruction. For this study,
roles and responsibilities were examined in four situations. First, the responsibilities of
teachers and children were examined on a continuum of more-teacher to more-child

responsibility for decision making and implementation of investigations. Second,

14

classroom discourse practices provided insights into the degree and nature of children’s
roles in classroom discussions. And finally, when text-based products were created, two
responsibilities—composing and recording—were examined based on a continuum of
more-teacher to more-child responsibility.

Observations of three sources of information helped to establish the context of
instruction. First, the curricular domain of the lessons was identified. Second, all
instances of direct instruction observed in a lesson were labeled according to curricular
domain and described with attention to the degree of emphasis per domain. This gave
insights into the degree of curricular integration. Additionally, instances in which
instruction made direct connections to life outside the classroom—for example,
interviews with members of the local community—were noted. This, along with the
audiences for text-based products—whether more school based or out-of-school based,
provided insights regarding the degree of connection to the world beyond the classroom.
In the next chapter I discuss in more detail how characteristics and amount of inquiry-

based instruction were examined in this study.

15

CHAPTER THREE

Methods

This descriptive study used systematic observations to document instruction in
high- and low-SES second-grade classrooms in Michigan. Systematic observation is a
recognized and accepted method for studying teaching and learning in naturalistic
settings and has been particularly useful for describing instructional practices (e. g., Good
& Brophy, 1997; Waxman, Tharp, & Hilberg, 2004). Additionally, observations have
been successfully used to explain differences in instructional methods across differing
contexts (e.g., Turner, 1995; Turner & Meyer, 2000). Observational methods allowed me
to examine the characteristics and the degree of implementation of inquiry-based
instruction as well as the similarities and differences of those implementations across
classrooms and across the differing SES contexts.

I focused on second grade because inquiry-based teaching and learning is required
in K-3rd grades according to the state of Michigan language arts standards, social studies
standards, and science standards. Second grade represents the middle level of this
designated group of grades

Participants
Overview

As explained below, a sample of classrooms was constructed to be representative
of high-SES districts and low-SES districts. SES was determined using district
information regarding free and reduced lunch statistics and adult education. Care was

taken to match the sample across SES settings by including equal number of teachers in

16

each group. The districts participating in this study varied in size and locale and included
urban and rural districts. Eighteen teachers—nine each from five high- and five low-SES
districts—participated in the study.

District and School Selection Procedures

School districts were purposefully selected from 140 school districts in mid-
Michigan. A subset of the 140 districts was designated high or low based on two criteria
1) percentage of children receiving free and reduced lunch and, 2) the education of
district residents (parents) 25 years and older (e.g., Entwisle & Astone, 1994). Districts
were selected first using the 2006-2007 Michigan Department of Education School
Breakfast and Lunch Information (Michigan Center for Educational Performance and
Education, 2007). Districts reporting the free and reduced lunch statistic in the 60th
percentile or higher were considered “low” on this statistic. Districts reporting this
statistic at the 15'h percentile or lower were considered “high”. The resulting pool of 40
districts was ranked according to percentage of adult residents with less than a high
school diploma using the 2003 State of Michigan Report of Educational Attainment for
District Residents 25 Years and Over. The range on this statistic was 0% to 33%.
Districts were contacted in order of ranking—lowest or highest—to form a sample
consisting of five high-SES districts and five low-SES districts (see Table 1).

Sixteen districts were contacted in order to create the sample of five high- and
five low-SES districts. In total nine high-SES districts were contacted with five of the
nine districts participating in the study. Two high-SES districts declined participation
with no specific reason. One declined because they had no teachers willing to participate

and one district was eliminated because the available classrooms did not meet the

17

requirements of this study. Seven low-SES districts were contacted with one declining to
participate because of involvement in another university research project, and one
reporting that no teachers were willing to participate.

Several criteria were used to select schools within districts. Because this study
focused on instruction in regular education classrooms, special focus and magnet schools
and/or classrooms were avoided during the selection process. Instruction for special
populations or with a particular themed focus can be qualitatively different and adds a
complication that would affect the validity of the observations for this study (e. g., the
observer might not be able to accurately code instruction that is delivered in a second
language or the amount of inquiry-based instruction might be much greater in a science
magnet school). Second—because this study examined the similarities and differences
based on SES—care was taken to avoid neighborhood schools that fell dramatically
outside of any district’s average free and reduced lunch statistics. Because adult
education statistics were only available at the district level, I was not able to compare
individual schools to district data based on adult education.

Participating districts had two different building configurations that were
important factors during the selection of schools and teachers. Three high-SES and three
low—SES districts were configured with two or more neighborhood schools. In the one
district with only two neighborhood elementary schools, both participated in the study. In
the five districts with more than one elementary school building, two schools were
randomly selected. The remaining four districts combined all pre-K-2 grade classrooms
within a district into one building designated the early childhood center. Each of these

early childhood centers participated in the study.

18

Teacher Selection Procedures

Principals were asked to nominate one or two of their teachers who used inquiry-
based instructional methods. To facilitate the nomination process principals were
provided with a definition and description of inquiry-based instruction along with a
general letter about the study. They were asked to use the definition to identify and
recommend teachers who commonly engage children in projects or investigations using a
systematic inquiry-based process. The explanation described methods of instruction that
include establishing questions, collecting information, and reporting answers, results, or
conclusions (see Appendix A). The nomination criteria did not include the general
teaching quality or years of service of the teacher. Principals in early childhood centers
were asked to nominate two teachers, because early childhood centers housed all
available second grade classrooms in the district and were generally larger than
neighborhood schools. All other principals nominated one teacher.

Seventeen of the teachers nominated in the first round initially agreed to
participate; however, one of the seventeen—a high-SES teacher from District C—
withdrew due to a family emergency. In that case a third school within the district was
randomly selected and the nominated teacher subsequently participated in the study.

In District I two building principals reported they had no teachers to recommend.
In this case, two more schools were contacted. While one teacher agreed to participate,
the other recommended teacher declined. At this point in the study there were only two
and a half weeks left in this district’s school year. For this reason, the principals I

contacted were reluctant to ask their teachers to participate in the study. At this point, I

19

made the decision to not contact additional schools in this district. Ultimately, only one
school and one teacher from District I participated in the study.

Finally, in order to have equal numbers of high- and low-SES classrooms, only
one school building was randomly chosen from District A. The nominated teacher in that
school agreed to participate. Thus, the final sample included 18 second grade teachers—
nine from high-SES districts and nine from low-SES districts.

Because principals identified and nominated teachers, it is not possible to report
how they explained the study to their respective teachers. In the same respect,
information is not available about the number of teachers who might have indicated no
interest in participating when contacted by the principal, or the number of teachers that
felt obligated to participate based on the principal’s request.

After teachers agreed to participate, I met with each one to provide a letter
containing general information about the study and to discuss the teacher’s role. The
letter outlined the study and described expectations of the teachers. It did not include
details about comparing SES settings. I felt that information might lead some teachers to
misinterpret my purpose as wanting to criticize, rather than describe instruction. This, in
turn, might lead them to change their practice, and so, impact the results. During the
conversation I communicated my desire to describe second grade instruction across
multiple classrooms, along with the need to observe instruction typical for each
classroom in order to accomplish the goals of the study. With that background
information, teachers were asked to identify two typical days of classroom instruction
that included no special assemblies, trips, or unusual amounts of time outside of the

classroom.

20

Teachers participating in the study had varying amounts of experience and were
mostly female. Of eighteen teachers, sixteen were Caucasian females. One low-SES
female teacher was African American and one high-SES teacher was male of Eastern
Pacific origin. In general, teachers in high-SES classrooms had less experience overall
and less experience teaching second grade than those teachers in low-SES classrooms.
Only two high-SES teachers had more than 10 years of total experience while seven of
the low-SES teachers had more than 10 years of experience. Similarly, six of the high-
SES teachers had four or fewer years of experience at second grade, and six low-SES
teachers had more than four years experience teaching second grade (see Table 2). An
independent I test showed, on average, teachers in low-SES districts had more years of
experience overall (M = 1978, SE = 10.29), than high-SES teachers (M = 6.89, SE =
6.41. This difference was statistically significant t (16) = 3.19, p > .05 with a large effect
effect size, r = .62. Additionally, teachers in low-SES districts also had more years of
experience teaching second grade (M = 8.33, SE = 4.24), than high-SES teachers (M =
4.89, SE =5.40, however, this difference was not statistically significant t (16) = 1.50, ns.

Teachers appeared to vary in quality as well as experience, although not along
SES lines. As explained previously, principals were asked to nominate teachers based
upon their inquiry-based instructional practices and not in terms of overall teaching
quality or years of experience. Based on many years of teaching and observing teachers,
my anecdotal impression is that the teachers referred ranged a great deal in their overall
quality, from extremely poor to very strong.

Data Collection

21

Two forms of data were collected for this study—observations of classroom
instruction and teacher interviews. Qualitative descriptions of instruction were
documented using the Inquiry-based Observation Protocol (IBOP) and detailed field
notes. Each classroom was observed for two full days resulting in 18 low-SES
observations and 18 high-SES observations.

Inquiry-based Observation Protocol

The primary instrument for this study was the Inquiry-Based Observation
Protocol (IBOP) (Billman, 2006) (see Appendix B). This instrument is designed to locate
observed instruction within the universe of possible implementations of inquiry-based
instruction. The IBOP includes an observation of instruction and a teacher interview
protocol.

The IBOP is designed for observing single lessons. During the observation data
are collected at the lesson level and the activity level. Lesson level data establish the
context of the observed lesson within prior and future instruction. This level also
distinguishes the types of curricular content or skills that are present or practiced within
the lesson, and which curricular domain is being addressed through direct instruction.
Within the lesson, data is collected at the activity level. The activity is the chosen unit of
analysis first, because lessons usually include more than one activity; and second,
because the instructional purposes of inquiry, along with the teacher and student roles and
responsibilities, can change from one activity to the next. The definition of activity that is
used for the IBOP is based on the work of Rivera and Tharp (2004).

Boundaries of an activity are defined by its unique purposes and products (Rivera

& Tharp, 2004). When the purpose or product of the instruction changes, observers begin

22

coding a new activity. For example, if a teacher and children are creating a chart that lists
possible methods for finding out their pet hamster’s favorite food, the purpose is
brainstorming methods and the product is a chart listing those methods. That is one
activity. If the class is divided into groups, and each group researches the viability of the
different methods listed on the class chart, the observer begins coding the instruction as a
new activity because the purpose has changed from creating the class list of methods to
determining the viability of the methods. For each activity, observers document detailed,
qualitative descriptions that include identifying and describing the implementation of
steps of the inquiry process.

The IBOP is designed for descriptions of instruction to be translated into nine
scales to create an inquiry-based instruction and literacy practices profile for each
observed activity. The profile reports on the presence of inquiry-based processes as well
as four characteristics of instruction including the presence of inquiry—related language
and the creation of text-based products. After observations of lessons are completed,
observers follow a series of coding steps to identify first, the presence of inquiry-based
instruction and then, if present, to code the characteristics of that instruction. The scales
are explained as follows:

Inquiry-Based Processes

Inquiry Practice: The inquiry practice scale reports on the
implementation, or not, of inquiry-based phases. If an inquiry-based phase is
coded as present during the lesson, the observer proceeds with coding the

Characteristics of Instruction for the lesson.

Characteristics of Instruction

23

(l) Inquiry-based Process Language: This scale reports on the
use of inquiry-related vocabulary. IBI language is coded as present or not
present.

(2) Context of Instruction: The ratings on this scale represent
how instruction is situated in relationship to other curriculum and/or life
outside of school.

(3) Roles and Responsibilities: Roles and responsibilities reports
on the distribution of responsibility across teacher and children. For
example, an activity in which children are planning the steps of an
investigation would receive a different rating for roles and responsibilities
than an activity in which the teacher provides an outline of steps for the
children to follow.

(4) Classroom Discourse Practices: This scale is somewhat
related to roles and responsibilities. It acknowledges who is participating
in the discourse during an activity, and in what capacity they are
participating. For example, rating for a teacher managing a recitation of
children’s observations would be different than the rating for children
talking together in groups to analyze data with little input from the
teacher.

(5) Text-based Products: Authors and Audiences: This scale
reports on the presence and creation of text-based products during inquiry-

based instruction. It is comprised of four sub-scales:

24

(5a) Text-based Products: The IBOP includes a checklist
for observers to note and categorize the text-based products created
during an activity. Products can be permanent or not, as in a chart
that is created on a white board versus one that is created on a pad
of paper. If text-based products are created during an observed
activity, the composing, recording, and audience scales are coded.

(5b) Composing: This scale rates the responsibility for
composing the text-based product. A report that is written by
children independently is coded differently than one the teacher
composes using children’s verbal contributions.

(5c) Recording: Similarly to composing, this scale rates
the responsibility for recording the text. While a text may be
composed of children’s contributions, the teacher may do all of the
recording on a class chart. In contrast, the children might be
responsible for recording text the teacher is dictating.

(5d) Audiences: This scale rates the audience for the
composed text on a scale of more school-based audiences to
audiences based outside of school. A text composed for the teacher
to evaluate or grade is coded differently than a letter to the local
town mayor.

The IBOP scales are coded in one of two ways. The Inquiry Practice scale, the
Inquiry-based Process Language, and the Text-based Product scales are all coded present

or not present (with a rating of present for the Inquiry Practice scale necessary in order to

25

move to any other scales on the instrument). Each of the other Characteristics of
Instruction scales has more than two category ranges. Higher scores represent instruction
that is considered to be more student-led, curriculum that is more integrated, or
instruction that is more situated in an outside-of—school context. A score of one represents
instruction that is more didactic, more traditional, or more situated in a single curriculum
context. Table 3 provides descriptions of the coding categories for each of the IBOP
scales as they were used in analysis (see later discussion). For a closer look at the IBOP
see Appendix B.

Reliability and Validity: Internal Consistency. The IBOP activity profile consists
of 5 independently reported scales—Inquiry Practice, Inquiry Roles and Responsibilities,
Context, Discourse Practices, Process Language—and one composite subscale— Text-
based Products, Authors and Audiences. The Text-based Products, Authors and
Audiences subscale consists of four items—Text-based Products, Composing, Recording,
and Audience (Billman, 2006). Internal consistency of the IBOP including all scales is
.78 (Cronbach’s alpha; n = 26] activities) at a .001 level of significance. Cronbach’s
alpha for the composite subscale—Text-based Products, Authors and Audiences—is .85
at a .001 level of significance.

Reliability and Validity: Interrater Reliability. Interclass Correlation (ICC) on
single measures was the method of analysis used to calculate the interrater reliability for
the IBOP (Billman, 2007). ICC for single measures is the appropriate analysis to report if
the instrument is going to be used by single raters (Garson, n.d). Statistics are interpreted
similarly to Cohen’s Kappa with 1.0 equal to perfect agreement across observers (Fleiss

& Cohen, 1973). Values of .60 to .79 are considered substantial reliability, and .80 is

26

considered outstanding (Field, 2005; Garson, n.d). Interrater reliability for the IBOP is
reported at two levels: 1) the identification of the boundaries of activities and 2) the
coding of observed instruction for the activity profile. Interrater reliability on the
identification of activities within observed lessons is .82 at a .001 level of significance on
single measures. Interrater reliability averaged across the items of the activity profile is
.73 at a .001 level of significance on single measures.

The current study was based on full day observations while the interrater
reliability for the IBOP was established based on observations of single lessons with time
frames of 30-90 minutes. Teachers established the boundaries of the lessons—beginning
and ending times—that were observed to establish reliability and validity data for the
IBOP. In that respect, the interrater reliability for the IBOP was not established for
observations in which observers are responsible for determining the boundaries of
lessons. Since the full day observations in this study included more than one lesson, this
could be considered a limitation when reporting minutes per lesson or content domain.
However, lesson boundaries generally seemed quite clear: most of the observed teachers
established lesson boundaries by posting daily classroom schedules or directly
communicating this information to their children as instruction proceeded. This
information facilitated identification of lesson boundaries during the observations.
Importantly, the length of a lesson or observation does not interfere with the reliability of
the activity profile scores.

Observations
I conducted all observations during the second semester of one school year. When

possible, observations were scheduled with the teacher to be at least one week apart

27

following the guidelines outlined in the IBOP (Billman, 2006). In several cases the time
between observations differed, with observations scheduled four to fourteen days apart
due to school vacations or the teacher’s schedule. Observation dates were scheduled in
collaboration with the teacher to avoid special events such as field trips or assemblies and
to observe school days when the teacher delivered the most typical instruction. In total, I
observed 14,934 minutes of school time with 10,470 of those minutes occurring in the
classroom and not designated as special classes or recess.

Each classroom was observed for two full days resulting in a data set of 36
observations—l 8 observations (7466 minutes) in low-SES classrooms and 18
observations (7484 minutes) in high-SES classrooms. Full days were observed because
the relevant literature recommends inquiry-based instruction as a viable method across
multiple content areas (e.g., Audet & Jordan, 2005; Beach & Myers, 2001; Kennedy,
1996; Seigel & F onzi, 1995; Wilks, 1995). Consequently, it is important to observe
across the school day to increase the probability that all potential uses of inquiry-based
instruction in different content areas are captured. I observed for two days because
inquiry-based instruction, by nature, is a complex process of interconnected steps. For
this reason, it is likely the process will occur across a sequence of lessons scheduled on
different days. Additionally, the IBOP is designed to collect information on a minimum
of two lessons in order to increase the potential to observe connected steps in the inquiry
process. Following the same format for this study seemed reasonable and important since
one full day observation would only provide descriptions of single lessons across subject

areas.

28

During observations I collected two sets of descriptive data: descriptions of
instruction using the IBOP, and descriptions of other school day events collected as field
notes. All observed content area instruction was documented using the IBOP and coded
at the end of each day’s observation. Even though some lessons ultimately were not
coded as including inquiry-based instructional practices, that information was impossible
to know before the lesson began. For events that did not include instruction—for
example, morning opening exercises or a teacher reading a book for entertainment—I
kept detailed field notes that included the amount of time allocated for the event.
Although I did not observe time spent out of the classroom in specials, lunch, recess, and
so on, I did document the number of minutes spent in those activities in the record of
school day events.

All segments of time in the classroom were labeled. This allowed me to establish
how much time was spent for instruction in each classroom compared to non-instruction
(e. g., language independent practice, class meetings, and snack break) as well as to make
comparisons between time spent and not spent on inquiry-based instruction. Instruction
was labeled by content area or content areas it addressed. IBI lessons that included direct
instruction from two curricular domains were labeled integrated instruction and then
examined for domain emphasis. Lessons labeled as integrated were then examined for
whether more time and attention was given to one domain than another during this
integrated lesson. For example, I coded one lesson as integrated when the teacher taught
science concepts and principles during a lesson in which she also taught language arts
skills and processes. In this example, communicating accurate science information set the

purpose for learning about and practicing writing processes and skills: however, more

29

time and attention was devoted to accomplishing the language arts instructional goals.
Therefore, this integrated lesson was also coded as language arts—resulting in a final
coding of integrated language arts. In this study, language arts received more time and
attention in all instances in which two domains were integrated. Events that took place
outside of the classroom were labeled according to purpose and included lunch, recess,
and special classes.

After each observation I constructed a chronological summary of events
according to type of event and number of minutes allocated for the event and reviewed
and selected the IBOP documented lessons that showed evidence of inquiry-based
instruction. Lessons that included at least one step of the inquiry-process were coded
according to the IBOP protocol.

At the end of the school day I asked teachers any questions needed to clarify
observations. For example, one teacher made several references to a week of daily trips to
a nature center, called the Big Nature Lesson. I asked her, “Would you talk a little bit
about the Big Nature Lesson your class took—how you decided to do it, a little bit about
the preparation, and then a little bit about what the kids were responsible for or how a
typical day went?” Teachers’ responses were documented as field notes. Although
teacher interviews using the IBOP interview protocol were also conducted as part of this
study, analysis of that data did not yield information not already recorded in the
observations and are not analyzed or reported for this paper.

Data Analysis
Data analysis involved creating three databases to address questions regarding the

amount and characteristics of inquiry-based instruction across classrooms and SES—the

30

observation summaries database, the inquiry practices database, and the IBOP activity

profiles database. In addition, in order to provide descriptions of specific inquiry-based
lessons, I reviewed field notes and IBOP activity descriptions and wrote summaries of
each inquiry-based lesson.

Observation Summaries Database: Amount of Inquiry-based Instruction

The observation summaries database was used to examine the amount of inquiry-
based instruction. Specifically, I used this database to calculate the total number of
minutes observed per curricular domain—science, language arts, and social studies (no
inquiry-based instruction in mathematics was observed)——and the total number of
minutes using inquiry-based instruction (IBI) per domain. I also calculated total minutes
for two subgroups of language arts lessons—language arts only lessons and integrated
language arts lessons (see previous explanation of integrated lessons). Totals were
calculated for each classroom, SES group, and for the entire sample. Additionally, I
calculated the proportion of minutes spent using IBI by SES and domain.

I averaged the IBI minutes observed in each classroom to provide a mean number
of IBI minutes per classroom. Wilcoxon Rank Sum analysis procedures were used to
compare these means across the 18 classrooms (Ott & Longnecker, 2001). Five
classrooms did not use any IBI. A further comparison using the same analysis procedures
examined SES differences for only those 13 classrooms that used IBI methods. In all,
cases significance levels were set at p = .05.

Pearson’s chi square test of independence was used to compare the number of IBI
minutes and the number of non-IBI minutes across SES groups with Cramer’s Phi used as

an estimator of effect sizes (Ott & Longnecker, 2001). Levels of significance were met

31

here and in all other reported chi square calculations when p = .05. Effect sizes were
based on Cramer’s Phi with values of less than .2 indicating a negligible relationship,
values of .2 to .5 indicating an important relationship, and values greater than .5
indicating a strong relationship (Ott & Longnecker, 2001).
Inquiry-based Practices Database

The inquiry practices database includes data from the Inquiry Practice scale. This
database was used to calculate the number of minutes spent in each phase of the inquiry
process: 1) questioning, 2) planning, 3) collecting data, 4) analyzing data, 5) reporting,
and 6) reflecting. Minutes were totaled for each phase observed per classroom, per
curricular domain, and SES. Pearson’s chi square test of independence was used to
compare SES groups with Cramer’s Phi used as an estimator of effect sizes (Ott &
Longnecker, 2001).
Activity Profile Database: Characteristics of Inquiry-based Instruction

The IBOP activity profile database was used to examine characteristics of
inquiry-based instruction. Specifically, this database recorded the use of inquiry-based
process language as present/not present and the characteristics of IBI as numerical codes.
I totaled minutes for each code category for each of the characteristics of IBI: 1) Inquiry-
based Process Language, 2) Roles and Responsibilities, 3) Context of Instruction, 4)
Classroom Discourse Patterns, and 5) Text-based Products: Authors and Audiences,
which was comprised of the sub-scales 5a) Text-based Products, 5b) Composing, 5c)
Recording, and 5d) Audiences. (See Table 3 for description of the category levels for

each scale.) Subtotals were calculated for each SES group and each curricular domain.

32

An inspection of the data showed that minutes were not distributed across all
categories for the following scales—Roles and Responsibilities, Context of Instruction,
Composing, Recording, and Audience scales. Because chi square requires that all cells
are greater than zero, I examined the categories in each of these scales and collapsed
categories for three—Roles and Responsibilities, Composing, and Recording—without
reducing important distinctions in the categories. The Roles and Responsibilities scale
was reduced from three to two categories by combining the two categories in which
children are described as having more agency (noted in Table 3 as categories 2a and 2b).
The Composing and Reporting scales were reduced from five to three categories of
authorship—1) teacher, 2) teacher and children, and 3) children independently. It was not
possible to meaningfully collapse the Context of Instruction scale or the Audience scale
categories. I used total minutes to describe the Context of Instruction and compare
groups. In the case of Audience, all high- and low-SES minutes fell within the same two
categories; that is, both groups had the same empty cells in common. This allowed me to
run a chi square comparison of the minutes observed while noting the findings in
relationship to the empty cells. Thus, I was able to conduct Pearson’s chi square analysis
for all but one of the Characteristics of Inquiry-based Instruction, the Context of

Instruction scale.

33

CHAPTER FOUR

Results

Findings from this study indicate there is little IBI implemented in second grade
classrooms. There were no statistically significant differences in amount of IBI
implementation between SES groups, although there were more minutes devoted to this
type of instruction in high-SES classrooms. IBI was observed during language arts,
science, and social studies instruction with more IBI observed during language arts
instruction followed by science and then, social studies. Proportionately, more social
studies instruction used IBI methods. Language arts IBI contributed the smallest
proportion of minutes to the overall total observed in that domain. Although all phases of
the inquiry process were observed, data collection was the phase most often implemented
with nearly half of all observed IBI minutes spent collecting data. This was the most
common phase observed during science and language arts IBI, with more than one half of
all science IBI spent implementing this phase. Reporting was the second most observed
phase and constituted the greatest amount of time spent in social studies IBI. The least
amount of time was devoted to analyzing or reflecting. While thirteen teachers were
observed using inquiry-base methods, no teacher was observed using IBI methods in
more than one lesson during one day’s observation.

Differences between SES groups lay in the characteristics of IBI. IBI instruction
in low-SES settings tended to be more situated in a single curricular domain, while
implementations of IBI in high—SES classrooms tended to integrate curricula or include

outside of school connections. High-SES classrooms were more likely to give children

34

opportunities to contribute during discussions or make decisions that determined the
directions of the investigations. While there was no difference in the amount of time
spent creating text-based products across the two SES settings, children in high-SES
classrooms were more likely to be responsible for composing and recording text. There
were no SES differences in type of audiences for these texts, and observed audiences in
all classrooms were school-based only. The results are presented in three sections: 1)
Amount of Inquiry-based Instruction, 2) Implementation of Inquiry Process Steps, and 3)
Characteristics of Inquiry-based Instruction. Results are organized or reported by content
area as we cannot assume that children would transfer IBI learning in one domain to
another.
Amount of Inquiry-based Instruction

Observations across the 18 classrooms resulted in very little documentation of
inquiry-based instruction. Of the 14,950 minutes observed, only 855 minutes, or 5.7%,
included inquiry-based instructional methods. Of thel44 individual lessons, only 17
included inquiry-based instruction. Even though all teachers participating in the study
were recommended for their use of inquiry-based instruction; five of the 18 did not use
any IBI methods. Nine only used IBI methods during one observation, and only four
teachers used IBI methods during both observations (see Table 4).

While teachers in high-SES classrooms spent more time using IBI than low-SES

teachers the two groups were not statistically different based on a Wilcoxon’s Rank Sum

comparison, W, = 73.5, ns, r = -.25. A Wilcoxon’s Rank Sum comparison of only those

13 teachers who used IBI was also not statistically significant, W S = 34.5, ns, r = -.25. A

Pearson’s chi square analysis of those minutes spent using IBI methods in high— and low-

35

SES classrooms compared to the number of minutes where IBI methods were not used
resulted in a significant value of chi square, X 2 (1) = 18.46, p < .001, with more minutes
devoted to IBI in high-SES classrooms; however, Cramer’s V = .035, indicates this
significance is negligible. In sum, there was no difference in groups to the extent that IBI
was implemented in low-versus high-SES classrooms; however, as will be explained
later, there were significant differences in the characteristics of IBI.

While the number of minutes of IBI used in high- and low-SES classrooms was
not statistically different, more IBI was observed in high-SES classrooms. Of the 855
total IBI minutes, 489 minutes were observed in high-SES classrooms, or 6.5% of all
7484 high-SES minutes observed, In contrast, 366 IBI minutes, or 4.9% of all 7466 low-
SES minutes were observed in low-SES classrooms. Ten of the 17 IBI lessons took place
in high-SES classrooms; seven of the lessons occurred in low-SES classrooms.

When comparing the number of IBI minutes in high- and low-SES classrooms it
is important to note that one, l90-minute, low-SES lesson occurred on one day and
contributed 51.9% of observed low-SES IBI minutes. In this particular case the teacher
explained that a change in the state language arts standards modified the requirements for
individual children’s experiences writing a research report. Rather than have children
individually establish a topic, collect information, and write reports, the teacher could
direct a whole class activity creating one class report and still accomplish the goals of the
standards. Due to time constraints and the district emphasis on preparing children for the
state assessments, this teacher and her second grade colleagues made the decision to

spend one day on a class research report.

36

In comparison, the longest high-SES IBI lesson was 90 minutes long and
contributed 18.4 % to the 489 minute total of IBI minutes. This lesson also involved
language arts curriculum; however, in that lesson the teacher devoted only the language
arts block to the research project instead of a whole day, and completed only a portion of
the project on the day observed. Outside of the l90-minute low-SES classroom where the
entire day was spent completing one IBI project, the length of IBI lessons across the
sample shows a tendency for high-SES lessons (M = 65 minutes) to be longer than low-
SES lessons (M = 33 minutes).

IBI in the Content Areas

IBI was observed in language arts, science and social studies lessons—all
curricular areas that include inquiry-based instructional methods in this state’s education
standards. Language arts lessons included three lessons strictly devoted to language arts
instruction and three lessons integrating language arts and science instruction. These six
lessons represent 457 minutes, or 53.5% of the 855 IBI minutes. More language arts IBI
lessons (4 versus 2) occurred in high-SES classrooms (see Table 5). Eight of 17 lessons
were devoted to science instruction and contributed 316 minutes—or 36.9% of all 855
IBI minutes. More IBI science lessons and more IBI science minutes were observed in
low-SES classrooms (see Table 5). While social studies IBI lessons were observed, only
three lessons for a total of 82 minutes--or 9.6% of all IBI minutes--were devoted to this
domain. All of these were in high-SES classrooms. Observations of IBI instruction in
each of these domains is discussed in more detail below.

Language Arts. Language arts instruction was the most frequently observed

content area instruction with 3992 minutes devoted to language arts instruction across the

37

18 classrooms. Although more of the IBI minutes were devoted to language arts,
language arts IBI instruction constituted the least proportion of total instructional time for
its domain—45 7 minutes or 11.4% of all language arts instruction observed. Overall,
more language arts instruction was observed in high-SES classrooms (2074 minutes) with
a greater proportion of those minutes inquiry-based—256 minutes or 12.3% of all
minutes were inquiry-based. When averaged, the amount of language arts IBI instruction
in high SES classrooms per day equaled 14.2 minutes. Fewer minutes of language arts
instruction were observed in low-SES classrooms—total 1918 minutes. Of the 1918
minutes, 201 minutes, 10.5% of all low-SES language arts instruction, were inquiry-
based. The average number of IBI language arts minutes per day in low-SES classrooms
equaled 11.2 minutes. In respect to language arts IBI in low-SES classrooms, it is
important to remember that one of the two low-SES lessons consisted of 190 minutes (see
previous discussion). This single lesson contributed nearly all of the IBI language arts
minutes observed in low-SES classrooms.

Regardless of SES—children either wrote or were engaged in some stage of
writing animal research reports in four of the five language arts lessons. That said, the
lessons differed in two ways—first, in the amount of time allocated for writing the report,
and second, in the degree to which science instruction was integrated with language arts
instruction. (Appendix C presents a brief description of all IBI lessons.) As previously
noted, in one low-SES classroom the teacher managed the writing of a single class report,
from beginning to end, in just one school day. Across the full day lesson, children helped
to establish categories of information and were responsible for listening and recording

facts to add to a class chart. However, after classifying the facts, the teacher took full

38

responsibility for organizing those facts into paragraphs which the children then copied.
In contrast, lessons in the three high-SES classrooms either prepared children for writing
or involved children in writing one portion of a report. For example, in one lesson
children participated in a class discussion and then had the option to work independently
or in groups to collect information. In another lesson, children independently wrote a
paragraph for a class report. The high-SES classrooms teachers explained that children
would complete additional writing steps in future lessons.

A second difference in the group of language arts lessons lay in how two high-
SES teachers—notably from different districts—integrated language arts and science
instruction. During these integrated lessons children gathered information to write animal
reports; however, the reports were directly related to co-occurring science units on
habitats. In these integrated lessons, teachers were observed teaching both science
concepts and language arts skills and processes. For example, science instruction in one
integrated lesson included a discussion of the inter-relationships of animals in the
wetlands habitat—predator and prey. This discussion included explanations of how and
why features of the habitat serve as protection for certain animals as well as explanations
of how animal colorations provide camouflage from predators. The teacher’s language
arts instruction included explaining how to think about categorizing important details and
translating them into paragraphs for a report. During the last activity of this lesson, the
children chose one of the categories of information and independently wrote a paragraph
to share with the class.

No curriculum integration of this type was observed in the two language arts only

lessons—one high-SES and one low-SES—in which children wrote animal reports. The

39

writing tasks in those lessons included some of the same types of content information
about animals—for example detailed visual descriptions of animals and their habitats—
and some of the same tasks of sorting and information into categories. However, the
instruction in these lessons only focused on language arts skills and processes and did not
include direct instruction of science principles or concepts. For example, in the high-SES
lesson the teacher provided instruction on different types of informational text—for
example books, magazines, intemet websites, and videos. Children were then provided
with opportunities to view a video for information and read different text-based materials
for information. They gathered descriptive information about gorillas, but there were no
discussions of this information in relationship to science concepts or principles.

Science. I observed 900 minutes of science instruction across the 18 classrooms
with IBI science instruction equal to 35.1 % (316 minutes) of all science instruction
observed. Of the 900 minutes of science instruction, 327 minutes were observed in high-
SES classrooms and 573 minutes were observed in low-SES classrooms. A greater
proportion of high-SES science minutes used inquiry-based methods—l 51 or 46.1%. IBI
science in low-SES classrooms equaled 165 minutes, or 28.8 % of all low-SES science
instruction. The average number of IBI science minutes in high-SES classrooms was 8.4
minutes per day; the average number of IBI minutes in low-SES classrooms was 9.2
minutes per day.

In all cases, the lessons coded as science instruction were direct implementations
of school district mandated curriculum kits or curriculum guides and included some form
of hands-on activity. There was more of this type of science instruction in low-SES

classrooms. ( As previously discussed, some science instruction was observed during the

40

integrated language arts lessons that occurred in high SES classrooms. Those lessons are
not included in the total minutes of science instruction because teachers spent most of the
instructional time and attention on language arts.)

Science IBI lessons took two basic formats: 1) experiments with stated questions
or hypotheses that were carried out and documented by groups of children while the
teacher provided directions and support, or 2) lessons or activities labeled as experiments
by the teacher when no question was stated to drive the experiment. While there was an
implied question, this type of lesson took on the characteristics of a demonstration in
which children collected observations. In some cases children were also provided with or
asked to come to some sort of conclusion or explanation of the phenomenon in question.
For example, to introduce a lesson one teacher modeled how to submerge a mirror in
water and use a flashlight to reflect light. The reflected light displayed the color
spectrum, a rainbow. Subsequently, groups of children carried out the same activity and
documented their observations in a science workbook. The teacher referred to this
activity as an experiment, although no question or hypothesis was articulated. This lesson
came from curriculum materials provided by the Battle Creek Area Math and Science
Center (BCAMSC). This second type of lesson was by far the most common type of
hands-on science lesson—four of five low-SES lessons and one of three high-SES
lessons. (See later discussion regarding the implementation of various steps in the inquiry
process for a further discussion of questions and the IBI process.)

I observed all science instruction conducted in classrooms. I did not observe one
science lab lesson in a low-SES district. This district, along with one high-SES district,

provided additional science instruction in special lab classes. Special lab lessons occurred

41

in separate classrooms and the science lab teacher planned lessons intended to support in-
class science instruction. Only one lab class was scheduled on a day that I observed. I did
not observe that lab class for this study because the regular classroom teacher did not
attend the class with her children and she was not responsible for any instruction during
that period.

Social Studies. Social studies was the least observed curricular area of instruction
with a only 217 minutes of the 14,950 minutes of instruction observed spent teaching
content within this domain. Although the least observed instruction overall, social studies
IBI instruction constituted the greatest proportion of total instructional time for its
domain—82 of 217 minutes or 37.8% of all social studies instruction. More social studies
instruction in general occurred in high-SES classrooms. One hundred and eight-six
minutes of social studies instruction were documented in high-SES classrooms and 82
(44.0%) of those minutes used inquiry-based methods. While 31 minutes of social studies
instruction were observed in low-SES classrooms, none of those minutes used inquiry-
based instructional methods. When averaged, the amount of social studies IBI instruction
per day in high-SES classrooms was only 4.6 minutes; for low-SES classrooms it was
zero.

In total, there were three social studies IBI lessons. Two lessons occurred in one
classroom and contributed 74 minutes to the total number of social studies IBI minutes.
The social studies IBI lessons were the only IBI lessons in which the context of
instruction included connections to life outside of the classroom. (See Chapter Two for a
discussion of context in relationship to IBI characteristics.) In one classroom, the brief

eight-minute lesson was a review of procedures for creating questions for interviews.

42

Children would eventually conduct these interviews with members of their local
community and neighborhoods.

The other two social studies lessons involved a project designed to culminate an
economics unit. During the first observation groups of children were engaged in
finalizing a presentation to answer the question: What are the steps for making X
product? Children used text-based resources provided by the teacher to describe what
materials were used, where the materials originated, and what steps were included in the
manufacturing process of the selected products. During the second observation the class
was in the beginning stages of developing a product to sell to the school community. Six
different groups of children were each asked to choose a product the class could
potentially sell and then do the brainstorming or research to construct a poster
presentation related to the following questions: What product could we make to sell?
How is that product made? What materials or supplies are needed to make this product?
How could we market this product? The teacher set the purpose for the day’s lesson and
then monitored discussions and facilitated decision making when necessary. Notably, the
members of each group were mostly in charge of the group’s decision making and
ultimately the group project. Not all groups made final decisions by the end of this
observation, but some examples of products being discussed included pretzels packaged
with comics, buttons, posters, and popcorn balls.

The teacher later explained that each group would eventually make a product
sample and deliver a presentation to the whole class. After all presentations, the class

would vote to determine which product to produce and sell to the school community. The

43

class would also determine how to use the profits from the sale to purchase resources and
supplies for the classroom.
Implementation of Inquiry Process Phases

As explained earlier, for this study inquiry-based instruction is defined as process-
oriented approach to instruction characterized by a set of discrete, though sometimes
recursive, phases that guide teaching and Ieaming activities. All observed IBI lessons
were coded according to the phase of the process implemented. Six different phases were
observed across the 855 minutes of IBI. Time spent on each step varied and no lessons
included every phase. (Phases that were present in individual IBI lessons are noted in the
description of lessons in Appendix C.) Although each phase of the inquiry process was
observed in both high- and low-SES classrooms, each phase was not observed in each
curricular area. In all phases except analyzing, more minutes were observed in high-SES
classrooms (see Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3). Data collection was the most common
IBI activity, followed by reporting and planning. Less time was spent questioning and
analyzing data. Reflecting was the least observed of the six phases.

A chi square comparison of high- and low-SES on IBI minutes allocated to
different phases in the inquiry process was statistically significant, X 2 (5) = 63.81, p <
.001, Cramer’s V = .273, with high-SES classrooms devoting more time to all phases of
the process except analyzing. A similar high and low comparison using the proportion of
minutes per IBI step provided the same results. While there were differences in time
spent in the steps, there were some qualitative similarities in the manner in which the
steps were implemented. The following section elaborates on the ways steps in the

inquiry process were implemented.

44

Descriptions of IBI Phase Implementation

The following discussion of the IBI phases is presented in an order common
across many readings of the process. While the phases are described in a particular order
for the purposes of this discussion, it is important to remember that the inquiry process is
not strictly linear.

Questioning. The questioning phase of IBI is often described as the time spent
establishing the purpose of an investigation. The purpose is often framed as a question or
hypothesis. Questioning was the fourth most common inquiry phase observed across all
classrooms, with 69 of all IBI minutes devoted to questioning. Of that time, more was
documented in high-SES lessons (52 minutes) compared to low-SES lessons (17
minutes). While questions were noticeably missing in most science lessons (see previous
discussion), more time was spent with questions in high-SES science lessons compared to
low-SES.

The questioning phase of IBI was observed in two of the six language arts
lessons, one high-and one low-SES classroom. Neither of the lessons that included
establishing questions were integrated language arts lessons, although each engaged
children in writing animal reports. Although the activity only lasted nine minutes, the
most explicit questioning activity was observed during the 190—minute low-SES lesson.
First, the teacher prompted children to generate questions. Then she selectively used their
responses to establish categories that guided data collection during the rest of the day.
The teacher restated or synthesized children’s questions to create five main categories—
What do monkeys look like? Where do monkeys live? What do monkeys eat? What do

monkeys do? What are some interesting facts about monkeys? These questions were used

45

to create a large classroom chart that was revisited to sort the facts children collected
during three data collection sessions.

The observed questioning activity in the high-SES classroom was similar to the
one observed in the low-SES classroom, except questions did not take a prominent role in
data collection. The teacher provided time for the children to independently brainstorm
and record personal questions on sticky notes. These questions were posted on chart
paper. In this classroom the questions were not read aloud by the children, nor were they
categorized or revisited during later activities of the lesson. When the lesson progressed
to collecting information about animals, the children were given graphic organizers with
predetermined categories to guide the recording of facts.

Questioning was not documented during any of the integrated language arts
instruction (see Table 6). Interestingly, although children were given graphic organizers
to guide data collection, there was no discussion of the categories in the organizer or of
the types of questions the categories represented.

Planning. In the inquiry process planning is explained as time spent determining
next steps in conducting an investigation; however, it might also include planning or
preparing to engage in work related to any of the inquiry phases. A total of 126 minutes
of the 855 IBI minutes were spent planning. While there were more minutes spent
planning in high-SES IBI lessons (93 minutes compared to 33 minutes in low-SES
classrooms), this phase was implemented in similar ways across the SES groups. The
planning minutes observed during this study were generally used by the teacher to
provide direct instruction or to model or review steps for subsequent activities.

Regardless of SES, children provided little input during this phase of inquiry. For

46

example, in one high-SES language arts lesson the teacher helped the children plan for
data collection by modeling how to read and collect information from an intemet site
while children listened. Similarly, in a low-SES language arts lesson the teacher used an
overhead projector to demonstrate how to record facts on a graphic organizer as she read
an information book. Planning in another classroom involved preparation to write a
report. In this lesson the teacher engaged the children in a discussion that recapped steps
followed during a previous writing activity. This was a precursor to the children working
together to write group reports. Science lessons that included planning were similar.
Teachers either read or discussed steps in preparation for conducting an investigation.
Data Collection. As previously noted, regardless of SES or curricular domain,
more time was spent in data collection than all other phases in the inquiry process. Nearly
half of all IBI instruction—421 minutes of the 855 minutes—was devoted to data
collection with more minutes observed in high SES classrooms (235 minutes compared to
186 in low SES classrooms). Data collection patterns were similar across SES
classrooms—information was collected or phenomenon was observed, reported and/or
recorded in some format, and shared with the teacher or class. Data collection tasks in all
but one language arts lesson involved reading or listening to information and selecting
specific facts to write an informational report about a chosen animal. Data collection in
the other language arts class involved a guided reading group conducting a survey. After
reading a book about ice-cream, this group of four children surveyed their classmates to
gather information about favorite flavors of ice-cream. The plan was to create a report for

the class during the next reading session.

47

The data collection in science lessons documented descriptions of phenomenon
observed during investigations. For example, children in one low-SES classroom used a
set of two mirrors to create different angles of reflection. At each angle a penny was
positioned between the mirrors and children documented their observations on a
worksheet formatted for the investigation. In one high-SES science lesson in which
children were observing different solids, the teacher solicited observations from the class
and recorded their responses on a class chart.

The data collection observed during the social studies economics lesson included
some elements of brainstorming in the sense that children were making decisions about
what product the group would produce and then collecting the pertinent information for
making the product. This information was documented by the children on posters that
would eventually be shared with the class.

Analyzing. The analysis phase of inquiry is that point in the investigation at which
investigators make sense of the data collected. This phase was the second least observed
phase of inquiry, with only 35 of all IBI minutes devoted to analyzing or making sense of
the data. Analyzing was observed in three lessons—two low-SES lessons and one high-
SES lesson. Importantly, all but six of the 35 minutes occurred during the one l90-minute
language arts lesson. In that lesson, analysis involved sorting facts recorded by the
children on graphic organizers. After collecting facts from each data source, the graphic
organizer was cut apart and children were asked to share single facts. Working as a whole
group the class analyzed each fact to categorize it based on the question it helped to

answer. Facts were taped to a class chart and used later to write the report. As noted, only

48

two other lessons included analysis. In these two instances the teachers provided a brief
statement that analyzed or explained the data while children listened.

Reporting. Reporting was the second most observed IBI step, at 178 minutes total.
All but 10 minutes of reporting were documented in language arts lessons. Once again,
the 190 minute low-SES language arts lesson contributed a significant number of minutes
to this total (74 of 178 minutes). In general, reporting involved children in the language
arts lessons writing informational texts about animals. However, in the high-SES non-
integrated language arts lesson, children were asked to use the data collected from books
and the intemet to write a story that anthropomorphized the gorilla. In this case, the
teacher’s directions included giving the gorilla a name and writing the story in the first
person. Children were directed to use facts to provide the setting and to describe a day in
the life of their gorilla.

Thirty-four of the 78 social studies IBI minutes were devoted to reporting. Most
of these minutes involved groups of children presenting oral reports to the rest of the
class regarding the process of manufacturing different food products. Only 10 minutes of
reporting was observed in science. That occurred in a low-SES lesson in which children
shared personally composed, narrative descriptions of observed changes in plants.

Reflecting. Only 23 IBI minutes were devoted to reflecting. Reflecting was
observed during two science lessons, one each in a high- and a low-SES classroom. In
each case, reflecting served a different purpose. In the low-SES classroom the purpose
was to activate children’s prior knowledge through a review of previous science
instruction. This activity took place at the beginning of the lesson and engaged children

in a discussion of previous investigations regarding the properties of light. The

49

subsequent activity explored those properties under different conditions. In the high-SES
classroom the reflection activity came at the end of the lesson with the purpose of
reviewing the day’s investigation and discussing new knowledge and exploring new
theories. The high-SES teacher first asked the children to reflect on the day’s activity—
dissolving different forms of sugar in water. She then initiated the discussion by asking
the children to share their thoughts about the experiment. Children’s responses included
some theories about the results and some ways to modify the experiment. During the
discussion the teacher accepted all contributions. Ultimately, the discussion ended with
no conclusions regarding the results of the investigation.
Characteristics of IBI

Five specific characteristics of IBI were examined using the IBOP activity profile
scales with one of the five scales comprised of four subscales. (The categories for each
characteristic are outlined in Table 3.) SES comparisons revealed notable differences in
five of eight characteristics of IBI, specifically in 1) ways that responsibilities are
distributed across teachers and children in lessons and in relationship to creating text-
based products, and in 2) the types of discourse practices that occur during instruction.
Chi square comparisons of SES indicated significant differences in l) Roles and
Responsibilities, 2) Context of Instruction, 3) Classroom Discourse Practices, 4)
Composing, and 5) Recording. Chi square comparison of inquiry-based language use and
time spent creating text-based products did not produce significant results, nor did a
comparison of audiences for text-based products. Results for each of the IBOP activity
profile characteristics is reported in more detail below.

Inquiry-related Language

50

IBI lessons were examined for evidence of specialized, inquiry-related
vocabulary—specifically, for vocabulary that identified or named phases of the IBI
process or discussions about the process. While inquiry-based vocabulary was used by
teachers, discussions about the inquiry process, in general, were not observed except in
one instance when a teacher discussed the scientific process as a precursor to an
experiment. This may be due to the fact that observations were conducted later in the
school year; teachers may be more likely to discuss the inquiry process in general earlier
in the year. Although the process was reviewed, the teacher used common, less technical
terms to name the phases. For example, “make a guess” was used instead of predict. That
said, this discussion of the inquiry process was the only observation of this type across all
classrooms using IBI. In most cases, if present, IBI related language was used only by the
teacher and involved isolated uses of words like experiment, research, or observations.
(Table 7 presents a list of vocabulary by content area.) IBI language was slightly more
common in activities within science lessons regardless of SES, although some vocabulary
was documented in all other domains. A chi square comparison of minutes from activities
that included some mention of IBI vocabulary and the number of minutes from activities
not including IBI vocabulary across groups, was not significant, X 2 (1) = 2.63, ns. (See
Table 8 for a distribution of minutes that included some mention of inquiry-based
language across domains and SES).

Context of Instruction
The distribution of data on this characteristic precluded statistical analysis;
however, examination of the raw data showed results that appear to differ substantially by

SES (see Table 9). As a reminder, the context of instruction for each lesson was coded as

51

one of three categories: 1) the context of IBI instruction was a single curriculum, 2) the
instruction included incidental connections to other curricular domains or life outside of
school, 3) the instruction purposefully integrated two or more curricula or connections to
life outside of school. During this study, no lessons in low-SES classrooms were
observed that integrated curriculum domains and/or life outside of classroom—that is,
teachers in low-SES classrooms tended to teach individual subjects. In contrast, two of
the high-SES classrooms integrated curricular domains and two made connections to life
outside of school. Two classrooms integrated language arts and science (see previous
discussion). In all three social studies lessons—which only occurred in high-SES
classrooms—children were guided in activities that would engage them with persons
outside of their classroom (i.e., interviews of adults in the community and selling
products to other members of the school community).
Roles and Responsibilities

The distribution of roles and responsibilities during IBI lessons was significantly
different in high- and low-SES classrooms, X 2(1 , N = 855) = 104.19, p < .001, Cramer’s
V = .349, with roles and responsibilities for children in high-SES classrooms more likely
to include having choices or contributing to decision making during the investigations
(see Table 10). Teachers in low-SES classrooms were primarily responsible for all
activities. These responsibilities included delivering instruction, directing investigations,
and/or managing recitation. In those classrooms, individual children were less likely to be
given choices. While teachers in high-SES classrooms were more likely to offer children
choices, the choices were controlled or managed. For example, in one high-SES language

arts lesson, all children were expected to write one paragraph about the same animal.

52

However, the children were given the opportunity to choose the topic of the paragraph
from four categories of information on a chart created the previous day. With respect to
roles and responsibilities, the two social studies economics lessons (both in one high-SES
classroom) were remarkably different than the rest. While the teacher set the parameters
of the project, she also created situations in which groups of children were responsible for
making critical decisions about what product each group would research, create, and
eventually present to the class.
Classroom Discourse Practices

Similarly to roles and responsibilities, discourse practices in high and low SES
classrooms were significantly different, [X 2 (3, N = 855) = 277.8, p < .001, Cramer’s Phi
= .57] with teachers in high-SES classrooms more likely to create opportunities for
children to make significant contributions to discussions within activities (see Table 11).
Some recitation was observed in all classrooms; however this type of verbal interaction
between teachers and children was more common in low-SES classrooms. Teachers in
high-SES classrooms more often used phrases or questions that were open-ended and
asked children to explain their thinking or provide alternative possibilities for observed
phenomena. Children had the greatest opportunities to direct discussion in the social
studies economics lessons. In those lessons, groups of children were in charge and the
teacher participated in conversations to provide scaffolding only when children had
difficulty making decisions. She spent more time listening to the children’s conversations
than talking herself.

T ext-based Products: Authors and A udiences

53

This group of scales reports first on whether or not IBI activities included the
creation of text-based products. Those activities that included text-based products were
further coded to describe the authorship of the product in terms of responsibility for
composing text and for recording text.

Text-based products. First, there was no difference in the amount of time that
children in high- and low-SES classrooms spent creating text-based products during IBI
lessons. Text-based products were created in activities within 15 of 17 IBI lessons for a
total of 546 minutes—294 minutes in low-SES classrooms and 252 minutes in high-SES
classrooms. In total, 19 individual text-based products were created during IBI lessons—
11 in high-SES classrooms and 8 in low-SES classrooms. Products included classroom
charts, curriculum-based worksheets used to record data and answer questions, graphic
organizers to guide data collection, and animal reports or, in the case of one classroom,
an animal story. (A brief description of each product is provided in Table 12.) In some
instances, as in the 190-minute language arts lesson, products were started in one activity,
interrupted by a discussion activity and revisited at later point during the lesson. While
there were more products, in number, created in the high-SES classrooms, more minutes
were spent creating products in low-SES classrooms. This is in part due to the one 190-
minute low-SES language arts lesson that spent an entire day creating a research report.
A chi square comparison of high- and low-SES IBI minutes spent creating text-based
products and high- and low-SES IBI minutes not creating text-based products was not
significant, X2 (1, N = 546) = 3.46, ns, Cramer’s v = .015.

Composing text-based products. There was a significant association between SES

and whether or not children were provided with independent opportunities to compose

54

text during inquiry-based instruction, with children more likely to be responsible for
composing text in high-SES classrooms, X 2 (2, N = 546) = 205.26, p < .001, Cramer’s
Phi = .613 (see Table 13). Differences in composing responsibilities are highlighted in
the manner in which high- and low-SES teachers directed the creation of animal reports.
As previously explained, the teacher in charge of the l90-minute low-SES language arts
lesson read informational text aloud while children listened and recorded facts. These
facts were subsequently sorted and posted on a chart. When it came time to write the final
report, the teacher selected certain facts from the chart, recorded them in a particular
order using an overhead projector, and then children copied what the teacher had written.
In contrast, a teacher in a high-SES classroom led a discussion about strategies for
synthesizing information in a graphic organizer to create an informational paragraph.
After this instruction, the children worked independently to write paragraphs using
information from their own graphic organizer.

Recording text-based products. 'As with composing, there is a significant
association between SES and who was responsible for recording text during IBI
instruction, with children in high-SES classrooms more likely to be responsible, X 2 (2, N
= 546) = 70.922, p < .001, Cramer’s Phi = .360 (see Table 14). As in other instances
across this study, differences in SES are complicated by the marathon language arts
lesson in the low-SES classroom. In this situation the recording was heavily managed by
the teacher—children were told what to copy. Because the animal report was completed
in one day, a great deal of time (111 minutes) was spent with children recording—
copying—text. Notably, the distribution of responsibility for recording in the other low-

SES classrooms tended to give children more responsibility for independently recording

55

information (e.g., children independently documenting observations of plants). In all
other low-SES classroom lessons, there were only 11 of 131 minutes in which children
copied text. This suggests that the l90-minute lesson is responsible for the statistical
significance of the chi square statistic. Similarly, in high-SES classrooms, where children
were given more responsibility for composing, they were also given more responsibility
for recording their own text.

Audiences for text-based products. Text-based products were coded for type of
audience, whether more school based or more outside-of-school based. (See Table 2 for
an explanation of categories.) Notably, regardless of SES, no audiences for text-based
products observed during this study were coded as outside of the classroom. Audiences
were similar across SES groups with no significant differences in a chi square
comparison of groups, X 2 (l, N = 546) = 3.32, ns, Cramer’s Phi = .078. The audiences
for all texts reflected traditional classroom instruction. That is, texts were written for the
teacher to evaluate, or texts were shared with the class or a select group of classmates.
For example, most science lessons included workbook pages or worksheets that were
handed in for the teacher to evaluate. Or, as in the case of the social studies economics
lesson, texts were shared presentation style with the whole class. Some texts were created
and used by the class and teacher as a resource during the lesson. These texts documented
learning, prior Ieaming, or sometimes enumerated the steps that would be followed

during a lesson. No texts were created for audiences outside the classroom (see Table 14).

56

CHAPTER FIVE

Discussion

While many advocate for inquiry-based instruction, the results of this study
suggest that children in second grade are experiencing little inquiry-based instruction,
even in classrooms with teachers nominated because their instruction “comes the closest”
to inquiry-based methods. Experiences with inquiry-based instruction that did occur took
place in single lessons during the school day and not across the curriculum. Additionally,
regardless of SES, the inquiry-based instruction included little attention to some phases
of the inquiry process.

The SES differences observed during this study suggest that, in this case, inquiry-
based instruction is implemented in ways that support social reproduction. The results of
this study mirror results documented in other studies describing differences in classroom
instruction by SES (Anyon, 1981; Duke, 2000). Children in high-SES classrooms had
more opportunities to participate in decision-making during investigations, more choices
during activities, and more opportunities to compose text. Variations in the contexts of
instruction also fell along SES lines. IBI in low-SES classrooms was more frequently
limited to one curricular domain; IBI in high-SES classrooms was more often integrated
or connected to life outside of school. While this difference is notable, we do not know if
these differences in the contexts of instruction advantage or constrain children’s Ieaming.

Conclusions
Results from this study suggest three important conclusions regarding the amount

and characteristics of IBI implemented in second grade classrooms.

57

Children in second grade classrooms, regardless of SES, are experiencing little
inquiry-based instruction and, the instruction they do experience occurs in single content
areas rather than across the school day. To the degree that the findings from this study
can be generalized, it appears that children may be missing opportunities to learn via a
highly recommended method of instruction. While IBI methods are recommended across
curricular domains, an interesting finding of this research is related to when, and in what
domain, teachers implemented IBI. Rather than a method of instruction used across
domains, IBI was implemented in a single content area in all classrooms in which IBI
was observed. Given this finding, there is the possibility that children are Ieaming to
associate the IBI process with particular domains and, in turn, may be less likely to apply
the process in situations just as appropriate, but outside of the curricular domain in which
they experienced it. Because no teacher was observed using this method in more than one
domain, this finding also raises questions about why teachers use inquiry-based methods
in some curricular contexts and not others. What prompts teachers to use inquiry-based
methods if they do? Are teachers basing their choices on methods outlined in curriculum
guides? Do teachers associate the method with certain curricula or with certain types of
projects or investigations? How do teachers define or describe inquiry-based instruction?

Questions about how teachers define the inquiry process also relate to how much
inquiry-related language was observed. When children did experience IBI, they were
rarely engaged in discussions about the process of inquiry. This, along with the limited
amount of IBI related language observed for this study, may be in part due to the timing
of the study (late in the school year). Regardless, this limited exposure to the language of

inquiry raises concerns regarding the depth of children’s knowledge about this process

58

for answering questions. If the key elements of the process are not named or explained,
children may be engaged in doing inquiry without coming to a deeper knowledge of
when and why different phases of the process are initiated. As previously stated,
explanations of the process may have occurred earlier the year. If so, one might expect
children would be using inquiry-based vocabulary during IBI discussions. In almost all
cases, inquiry-based vocabulary was used only by the teacher.

In addition to experiencing little IBI in general, the children in this study received
a minimal amount of IBI instruction across the domains specifically mandated by this
state’s science, language arts, and social studies standards. In fact, the amount of IBI
instruction observed ranged from as little as zero minutes to 14.2 minutes per day
depending upon domain and SES. The small amount of time spent in IBI raises a question
about whether children are provided with sufficient opportunities to meet state
expectations in each domain.

In particular, very little science IBI or social studies IBI was observed. One
contributing factor may be related to the emphasis on language arts in the primary grades.
Recent studies have documented that primary grade classrooms are paying less attention
to science and social studies curricula, possibly as a result of the emphasis on language
arts instruction prompted state and national mandates (e. g., Dolph, Goldstein, Lee,
Lepori, Schneider, & Venkatesan, 2007; Saul, 2004). Like those studies, findings from
this study show that the amount of language arts instruction (3992 minutes) across the 18
classrooms equaled close to three and a half times the amount of time spent in science

(900 minutes) and social studies (217 minutes) instruction combined.

59

The lack of IBI in science is particularly surprising. Inquiry-based instructional
methods are commonly associated with discussions of science education. Science
educators argue for inquiry-based instruction on the grounds that it supports the
development of scientific habits of mind, as well as creating appropriate contexts for
learning science content (e.g., Etheredge & Ruditsky, 2003). Notably, for this study, less
than half of the science instruction observed (316 of 900 minutes) used inquiry-based
methods. In fact, the average amount of IBI science instruction per day equaled 8.4
minutes per day in high-SES classrooms and 9.2 minutes per day in low-SES classrooms.
One would question whether this is enough time to develop the scientific habits of mind
considered so important to those concerned with children’s science education.

The limited amount of social studies instruction observed during this study, in
general, is disConcerting. Whether inquiry-based or not, the children in this study appear
to have few, if any, opportunities to learn information related to the social world. That
said, a greater proportion of social studies instruction compared to science or language
arts, was inquiry-based, although this comes entirely from high-SES classrooms. This
may suggest that the social studies are more conducive to inquiry—based methods;
however, there was so little social studies instruction observed that conclusions are
tenuous at best.

A solution for increasing the amount of social studies and science in primary
classrooms may be to integrate more content from those domains into language arts IBI
investigations. An interesting finding in this study was just how little variation was found
in the IBI language arts lessons. Given all of the topics that could be chosen for a

language arts investigation, it was surprising that four classrooms in four different

60

districts were investigating and writing about animals. Certainly, using children’s favorite
themes—like animals—can be interesting and motivating for them, and also, result in
successful inquiry investigations (Erickson, 2003). That said, in many cases these animal
investigations did not really integrate core science content or research principles.
Research has shown that integrating curriculum can have benefits for children’s
achievement in both domains (e. g., Cervetti, Pearson, Barber, Hiebert, & Bravo, 2007;
Romance, & Vitale, 1992; Roser, & Keehn, 2002; Whitin, 2007). In that sense,
developing investigations that include science and social studies content instruction in the
context of language arts instruction may increase instruction in science and social studies
while enhancing children’s achievement both.

When implemented, IBI instruction in second grade tends to focus less on phases
of inquiry that involve critical thinking and more on tasks such as the collecting and
reporting of data. The phases more commonly observed during this study—data
collection and reporting—are described by some as more concrete, in contrast to phases
like analyzing and reflecting that require critical thinking skills and are considered more
abstract (Metz, 1995). Metz argues that beliefs rooted in interpretations of Piagetian
views of children’s cognitive development—especially in their ability to think abstractly
—have influenced visions of IBI in primary grade settings. This, in turn, has impacted the
manner in which inquiry processes are introduced and presented in curricula designed for
primary grade children. These views of primary grade children may influence what
teachers do directly, or the curricula provided for teachers to use, or both.

Importantly, studies have shown that primary grade children are capable of

engaging in complex scientific thinking including analysis and reflection (e.g., Hapgood,

61

Magnusson, & Palincsar; 2004; Samarapungavan, Mantzicopoulos, & Patrick, 2008). The
children in this study had few opportunities to engage in this type of thinking; they spent
the majority of the time observing and collecting data and little time analyzing or making
sense of the data. This may have resulted in missed opportunities to teach and model
critical thinking skills, as well as missed opportunities to capitalize on children’s abilities
for thinking. Focusing on certain phases of the inquiry process may also impact what
children are learning about the inquiry process itself—what it is and how it is used. In
particular reference to learning in science, Metz (1995) has argued that focusing science
instruction in some phases of the inquiry process and excluding others may also lead
children to inaccurate perceptions of scientific drinking as well as misconceptions of
science concepts and principles.

Implementations of inquiry-based instruction vary across SES settings in ways
that can contribute to social reproduction. Like other studies examining social
reproduction and education, based on the findings of this study, it appeared that children
in high-SES classrooms were perceived as more capable thinkers (e. g., Anyon, 1981).
Specifically, children in high-SES classrooms were given more opportunities to make
decisions during investigations and to provide contributions beyond answers during
discussions. They were also more responsible for composing text than children in low-
SES classrooms. As in some descriptions of pedagogy in high poverty urban settings,
many teachers in low-SES classrooms in this study did more direct teaching or managing
of recitation, provided fewer choices for children, and engaged children in copying texts
rather than composing texts (e.g., Anyon, 1981; Haberman, 1991). These findings

suggest that the manner in which IBI methods are implemented—like other instructional

62

methods observed across classrooms in studies like this one—contributes to the
continuation of social class differences.

There is one way in which the results of this study did not mirror previous
research studying SES differences in education. Although Duke (2000) found that
children in high-SES settings had more opportunities to write for audiences outside of the
classroom, there were no differences of that type observed in this study. In fact, during
the IBI instruction observed in this study, no children wrote for audiences outside of the
classroom. Regardless of SES, the text-based products were written with the teacher or
the class as audience. Some texts, like workbook pages, served to document children’s
observations for the teacher to evaluate. Others, like class charts, documented
observations or discussions for the class to reference during the current activity or in
future lessons. In fact, contrary to some perceived benefits of IBI (e.g., Erickson, 2003;
Mills, O’Keefe, & Jennings, 2004), IBI was not observed as an avenue to create more
authentic text-based products in this study.

An interesting SES difference was found in the context of IBI instruction.
Although not statistically tested (for reasons previously explained), SES comparisons
showed that IBI instruction in low-SES classrooms included fewer connections to life
outside of the classroom. We do not know if the context of instruction contributes to the
social reproduction found in school settings. However, some research has shown that
authentic literacy practices—practices that include texts and purposes for reading and
writing texts that exist outside of school—influence adults’ literacy practices outside of
the classroom (Purcell-Gates, Jacobson, & Degener, 2004) and are associated with higher

student growth (Purcell-Gates, Duke, & Martineau, 2007). To the degree that authentic

63

practices are associated with student growth, children who have more of these types of
experiences—in this case children in high-SES classrooms—may be advantaged.
Limitations

There are several limitations to this study. First, focused observations document
selected features or variables of classroom teaching and Ieaming. Whether or not these
variables capture all of the nuances of the targeted teaching and Ieaming may be
questioned. That said, the IBOP was the primary instrument used for data collect and is
an instrument carefully designed and tested to specifically capture variations in inquiry-
based instruction. One of the unique characteristics of the IBOP is the design feature that
includes qualitative documentation of instruction in real time. Within that portion of the
instrument, there are opportunities for the observer to describe features of the lesson that
may fall outside of the categorical checklists. I also supplemented the IBOP with detailed
anecdotal notes and, in some cases, asked teachers to provide explanations of observed
instruction.

Second, the results of this study are based on only two days of observations—a
small subset of a school year’s instruction during the second half of the year. Given that
the typical school year consists of about 180 days, and the assumption that teachers’
instruction may vary across the school year in response to the children’s learning and
development, the results of this study need to be interpreted with caution. To help
minimize this limitation, teachers were asked to help identify days that represented the
most typical sample of their instruction. Despite those design features, the lessons
observed during this study may not be representative of a teacher’s instructional methods

over a larger period of time. For example, nine of the teachers in this study were only

64

observed using IBI methods on one of the two days. Especially in the case of the 190-
minute lesson, more observations might add important information about the frequency
of the teacher’s use of IBI instruction. Additionally, references to future work or lessons
during my observations led me to believe that future lessons might include characteristics
of IBI that would be coded differently. As an example, during the social studies
economics lessons, I observed the children’s first steps towards making and selling a
product to other members of the school community. As the teacher helped children make
decisions about products, she talked about advertising those products. Since the eventual
consumers were outside of the classroom, those advertisements would be written for
audiences outside of that classroom—parents, friends, other classrooms. All of the text-
based products I observed during the study were written with only the classroom
community as audience.

A further limitation is the possibility that teacher and student behavior were
affected by my presence, which would be a threat to validity. Despite this limitation,
observational research is one methodology that has consistently provided valuable
insights into classrooms and effective instruction (e.g., Good & Brophy, 1997; Waxman,
Tharp, & Hilberg, 2004). To minimize the intrusiveness of data collection I asked each
teacher to provide typical instruction, to follow regular routines when introducing me to
the class and to designate a space for observing that was as unobtrusive as possible.

There is also a limitation in terms of the sample of teachers in this study.
Statistically, the low-SES teachers had more years of experience than the high-SES
teachers. This statistic is in contrast to most descriptions of teachers in low—SES schools.

According to Loeb and Beteille (in press), schools with “minority enrollments also have

65

higher proportions of teachers in their first three years of teaching, higher proportions of
teachers with less than ten years of experience and the lowest proportion of teachers with
more than twenty years of experience.” This suggests that the sample of low-SES
teachers is not representative, at least with respect to years of teaching. This may be due
to the fact that they were nominated by principals specifically based on their
implementation of IBI.

Additionally, teacher experience may be a contributing factor in the amount and
characteristics of IBI observed during this study. Examination of the relationship between
years of experience and the amount and domain of inquiry-based instruction reveals
interesting patterns. The teachers in the four most inquiry-based classrooms had seven or
fewer years of experience and three of the four implemented IBI in language arts or
integrated language arts lessons (see Table 15). This included one low-SES teacher.
Additionally, five of the eight teachers with 14 or more years of experience implemented
IBI during science lessons. Two of the eight most experienced teachers provided no IBI
and one teacher implemented IBI during an integrated language arts lesson. These
patterns raise questions about the contribution of years of experience to the amount and
characteristics of the IBI the teachers used. For example, are there differences in the pre-
service teacher training these teachers received that might result in different
implementations of IBI?

Recommendations for Future Research

This study provides important information about the amount and characteristics of

inquiry-based instruction implemented in second grade classrooms. However, this is not a

study of IBI implemented in a random sample of classrooms. Rather, this is a study of IBI

66

implemented in classrooms specifically nominated by principals (albeit of randomly
selected schools in randomly selected districts) as “coming the closest” to implementing
inquiry-based instruction—with two principals declining to nominate any teacher to
participate in the study based on this description. Given the nature of the nomination
process, it is reasonable to guess that a study of a truly random sample of teachers would
have yielded far less IBI than observed in this study.

Since inquiry-based instruction has a long history and a strong presence in the
literature, it is interesting that this study found little evidence of this type of instruction.
While some reasons may be due to the challenges that teachers face in meeting the
demands of the curriculum, some reasons may be related to difficulties related to
implementing the instructional method itself. Understanding the challenges teachers face
in implementing IBI and understanding how teachers who do implement a great deal of
IBI introduce and sustain this type of instruction over the course of a year, would
contribute important information for thinking about ways to support teachers who are
inexperienced in this method.

In that respect, future work focused on inquiry-based instruction in the primary
grades would benefit from studies that examine teachers’ characteristics in relationship to
the amount and characteristics of inquiry-based instruction implemented in classrooms.
While this study describes the amount and characteristics of IBI, it does not provide
information about why teachers in different SES contexts choose to implement inquiry-
based instruction and in particular ways. Additionally, there is more to understand about

what teachers know about inquiry-based instruction. We do not know how their

67

definitions and understandings of inquiry influence the manner in which they do, or do
not, implement inquiry-based methods.

Results of studies showing positive impacts on children’s Ieaming combined with
the results of this study—little IBI instruction is occurring in second grade classrooms—
suggest that the field would benefit from research that explores what kinds of curricula
and professional development might alter the amount and nature of teachers’
implementations of inquiry-based instruction in different SES classrooms (Gray, 2001;
Klein, Hammrich, Bloom, & Ragins, 2000; Schmidt, Gillen, Zollo & 2002; Valadez,

F reve, 2002). For example, does professional development designed to provide support
with inquiry-based instructional methods, combined with explanations of children’s
learning and development, impact the amount of instructional time spent on different
phases of the inquiry process? Does professional development that supports teachers with
explanations of how to integrate curricula using inquiry-based methods, along with the
explanations of the benefits of integration with respect to children’s achievement,
increase the amount and characteristics of inquiry-based instruction teachers implement
in classrooms?

This study adds important information about the amount and characteristics of
inquiry-based instruction in high- and low-SES second grade classrooms. The results,
which are likely disappointing for proponents of IBI, also raise concerns for content
educators and those who are interested in understanding differences in educational
opportunities afforded in varying SES contexts. In fact, findings from this study suggest

there is much work needed to support teachers’ implementation of this method of

68

instruction with many questions remaining to guide researchers’ inquiries about inquiry

in the primary grades.

69

APPENDIX A

Principal Nomination Guide

70

APPENDIX A

Teacher Nomination Guidelines

For this study I am interested in observing teachers whose methods of instruction
commonly include inquiry-based teaching and Ieaming. That is, as I define it, instruction
that:

* engages children in projects or investigations,

* uses a systematic or step-by-step process,

* includes establishing questions, collecting information, and reporting answers,

results and/or conclusions.

This could be inquiry-based instruction during science, social studies, the reading/writing
block, or any other part of the day. I am asking you to identify the second grade teacher

in your school who comes closest to providing this kind of instruction.

71

APPENDIX B

Inquiry-based Observation Protocol

72

APPENDIX B

Inquiry—based Observation Protocol

 

 

Inquiry Based Instruction
Classroom Observation Protocol

Alison K. Billman
Michigan State University

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spring 2008
CLASSROOM ID
OBSERVER
DATE
OBSERVATION DFIRST D SECOND
Lesson/Session 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10

 

Lesson Topic

 

 

 

 

73

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IBOP Observation Protocol

Alison K. Billman

 

Page 1

 

CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION OBSERVATION

 

1. Classroom Information and Background

 

Classroom ID #
A.

 

B. Date of Observation

C. Grade Level(s) of classroom

 

l Observer Name (|D#)

 

Time observation of instruction
began:

Time observation of instruction
ended:

Total observation time:
(total minutes)

 

Number of children per grade level

 

 

Number of students: boys

Number of adults other than the lead teacher present during the lesson observation

(e.g., education specialists, aides, parents):

Identify
Adult roles:

girls

 

COMMENTS

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

 

Indicate percent of time adults are present during
the observed lesson.

Use numbers to fill in the boxes

1: less than 20% of lesson

2: more than 20% to 40% of lesson

3: more than 40% to 60% of lesson

4: more than 60% to 80% of lesson

5: more than 80% to 100% of lesson

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IBOP Observation Protocol Alison K. Billman

Page 2

 

2. Lesson Information:

1. Does the teacher state a purpose or objective for this lesson?

 

 

 

 

 

 

A. if yes, what is the stated purpose for this lesson? YES NO
2. Does the teacher connect the lesson to a big idea?
If yes, what is the big idea? YES NO
B. Where does this lesson appear to fit in the overall scheme of instruction? Check which best applies.
This lesson introduces a unit of study
_Lessons came before and will come after this lesson/ This is one of a series of
lessons within a unit of study or specific project that build on each other
This lesson culminates a larger project or unit of study
Other (explain)
C. Does this lesson appear to address or include any of the following content areas? Check all that apply.
_ Language Arts Science __ Mathematics
Reading _ Health
_lnformational _ Social Studies Other (explain)
_Literature/narrative _ Arts
Writing

 

 

D. Does this lesson include specific instruction in any of the following content areas? Check all that apply.

 

Language Arts Science _ Mathematics
Reading _ Health
_lnformational Social Studies Other(explain)
fiLiterature/narrative __ Arts
Writing
Comments

 

 

 

 

75

 

 

 

IBOP Observation Protocol Alison K. Billman Page 3

 

ACTIVITY CLASSROOM |D# INQUIRY PROCESS

LESSON ACTIVITY SUMMARY

(Briefly describe what is happening during instruction)

NUMBER:

 

VOCABULARY
T 2 Teacher A. CODE each stage oft/1e inquiry

S : Student process as observed during the activity
TE = vocab. taught usin 7 Roles Rubric.

Record
TIME

Start Time

 

 

VIVG
~10 HOHVESBH
9N|ZISEHlAS

1° ONIZA'IVNV
EINON

NOIlSEDD
ONINNV'Id
ONLLEIOdEEI

End Time

NOIIOEI'I‘IOO
ONILOEI'HEIEI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B. CODE which stage of the inquiry
process is MENTIONED during the
activity with Process Lang. Rubric.

Describe Transition

 

 

 

Total Min.
CLASSROOM/COMMUNITY WORK PATTERNS
Check all that apply. Comment on work patterns; for example, is teacher attention equally distributed across students? Are all students participating
in the activity or a select few? Are most students on task most of the time?

 

 

 

 

Comments

Students are working:

Independently

In pairs

In groups

As whole class with teacher

Teachers are working:

With individuals Structured Unstructured
With groups Structured Unstructured
With whole class Structured Unstructured

On unrelated tasks

 

 

 

 

 

PRODUCTS El Elvns D |:lNO PERMANENT: D I:IYES 3 ENG TEXTuBASED: D EIYES D Em ,

 

 

 

 

 

 

Check all that apply.
Journals/notebooks II Brochures II Computer documents II Other (PLEASE EXPLAIN)
Classroom charts II Models II PowerPoint presentations II
Letters II Worksheets II Web pages II
Posters II II NONE II

 

 

 

 

 

 

76

 

 

 

IBOP Observation Protocol Alison K. Billman Page 4
RESOURCES/ MATERIALS Check all that are used in the context ofthis lesson.

 

 

 

 

Texts Experts

Vlnformation books iLiterature _Pamphlets __Present and participating in the classroom

vEncyclopcdias APosters __Textbooks 7Communicating via e—mail or other technology

vNewspapcrs _Charts iWorksheets iOtlier(PLEASE LIST)

_Letters 7 Big Books __ NONE

gOther (PLEASE LIST) WNONE

Web-based Resources Hands on tools and supplies(i.e. beakers, scales, clay, seeds, etc ) PLEASE LIST
_ch-bascd text iOther (please explain)

iWeb-based simulations

7 E—mail communications NONE NONE

 

 

Hands on live materials(i.e. plants, owl pellets, live animals) PLEASE LIST
NONE

 

 

TEACHER STUDENT UTTERANCESIACTIONS

 

 

 

 

 

Teacher Utterances code and tally teacher utterances Student Utterances code and tally student utterances
Coaching/Scaffolding/Support Presentation/ Report
Modeling/Demonstration
(think aloud; hands—on demo) Raise questions related to

discussion

 

Telling/giving content
information Contribute ideas to discussion

 

 

Task structuring/Instructions

 

Monitor personal comprehension

 

 

 

 

Open-ended questioning to of content (i.e. I don’t

probe student thinking understand; can you say that
again; etc.)

Restating or confirming Clarify directions

student response
Evaluating or questioning
requiring specific answer or action)

 

 

Recitation (give correct answers

 

 

Management (behavior) Unrelated comments

 

 

Other: Other:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CODES

t I 2 3 4 5 5a 5b 5c I

 

77

 

 

 

 

Complete after observation. Provide a brief description of the lesson of the lesson.

LESSON SUMMARY

 

 

 

Note any needs for clarification or follow—up that need to be addressed in the interview.

QUESTIONS FOR THE TEACHER

 

 

78

 

 

 

APPENDIX C

Descriptions of IBI Lessons

79

a0§2=8 REEVQQE

 

05 3:03:00 839% “003% 000:0:0000 00:80:0w 006::0 :00
20:00:: 3:305 00:000.: £038 03: 5:5 E0E:0mxv§ E
83:: 39:80: :00 $0005 ESE: E 0000:: 33030: 00:000.:
B000: 0.: “0008 0: 00:00: 0 “020000

005::0 4.500.. £89200 03.: 0 :0 E0: 0.: E 800: :0 $500000:
05 3:00.50 00:08:. .m0:0w0:00 0: $508000 $00: :0t0m
000230 :00 00:000.: .8000 “00:800.— 3000008386 :00 82>

0 :0303 006::0 .900: "009000: 3300002086 00820 :00
8050000 20000:: :00.— 00:000._t $60—02: 50:0 300.: w::00:00
00: 8:03:00 :00 30:83: :0H000c0w 02220 :00 00:000P

00:0:000Q :05:

00:00:00 0:00
00:000: 3 ©0253 00:02.0

$00008 ESE: :0 30305

20:0:

300.: 0Nb00<

00:00:00 Ema

00:00:00 80: 00: wESBE

w::0.~0=0w 005000

mafia m:

moceom _.S

3:0 5 N. 3

E02000

 

€03.04 m: .00 000:0:0m0o

0 VQQZmnE<

8O

3.0022200 030000S3

 

.00:0>00m:0 :00: 0.:
00000000 000 0000000 w0:00_0 00: 00 0.00:0:0000 0000.5 080.20

.0000 0:03:00: 0: 00000 000:0 0000—20 0030: 0000000 .08:

00:00:00 0:0Q

800000000. 00-8w 000000000

 

 

 

00>0 530% 000:0 00,0030 0.003 0002.30 00,: 0050308 0000000 00:00:00 000 00: @0000?— 0000_0m _i—m
.00_mm0m w0m0000 002% 0x00 05 000 02:00:00 003 00000
00H .0000 00.00w 0: 800090.03 0.: @000: 0000000 00050
$00,000 0 0000000 :00: 00::0w0H 080000-00: :0 00>0: 00090: C000: 000000000 0: 0: 0000::
0.: 0: 00:3 ”00:00:: 00: 08:00 0:00» $00000 002% 0.: 000 00:00:00 000
0000000 0.: 80000-03 00000 0.00: 00:05:00: 00 w0_0000 0:03 w0:0._000w 00:800 300 <1— :40
002003030 00.: 00:000—0x0 00::
. 0003000 0000009 .0000 00:000.. 000 00000000 000 0000:0098 00:0003xm\0mb00< 0000_0m _i—m
0090:0009 0.005 0000:: E: 000000

 

«00053000 0 00002:?N

81

«0.0022200 EBBQQE

 

02.8

0000::0 000:: :0 00:00:00: 00:00:00 000 003030 0000::0 000

0000:0098 00-0000:

 

 

 

 

0:800 0:00:00 0 :0 00:00:00: 0:: .:0 00500000 0 00_ 00:000H $03380 :00 :0 3030:: 0000:0m _.:_
000:02030 00:: 00:00.00000 000 33:00 0:000 0::
00:000000 0:00 :0000:m .::m::m0: 000 00:03 :0 0:00: 0 .3058 00:00:00 0:00
wEm: 33:00 00 :0 2202030 0000: 000 00:00:m000:00 00:000h 00:0500800 0000002
.::w: :0 00:00:00: 000 00:3:00 :0: 00:: 003030: 00:000H A00:_>:00 :00 :0 3030:: 0000:0m :40
00:000: 0:: a: 00:00::0 m0
m00:0>.:0m:0 0000000.: 0000::0 Emma 000 ::w::m0: 0 gas Em: 00:00:00 0:0Q
:0 00:00:00: 0:: 0:500:98 b_>:00 00-0000: 0 00800000 00:0009 00:00:0000003 00-00002 0000:0m 75
.303 0:: 505 0:00 000:0 0: 0020300000 003w 0:03
0000::0 080m 000:02030 0200000000 000 :003 :05 002030 0000:
08220 40:00:: 0: m0w00:0 0Z0m:0 0: 0000::0 0808000 00:000H 00:00:00 0:0Q 0000:0m mqm
00:0:0m0Q 00:5 0000:: :9 :00:000

 

«00:22:00: 0 0000:“?

82

«00:50:00 £0§9~$

 

00000 000 00:0000 00:0w00000 80:0 000:0000 00:0:000w 0000::0

m0:0:000w 020000

:00 <0 0.0m

 

.0008 0:03 00200—0000 00 000 00:00000 003 0808800

:< 00080098 0.:: 0w00:0 0: 0003 000033 080m 08:80:90
0000::0 080m 8080090 0:: 80:0 0::w00:: 00:: 00:0

0: 0000::0 0:: 00:00 0:08: 0:: 00 w0:000_0 00::< 00203030
008080000 000 8080090 00:000000 0:00 :0000:m

.00w00 :0 08:0: 03: w03_000:0 8080098 00 8 000:0 080—98

00:000.: 0:00 00w00 0 000 00w00 00:0:0000w :0 000:0800:0

00:00:0m
00:00:00 0:0Q
8080090 000000:

00:00:00 0:00 080:0 00:000.:

 

 

00:00::0 00:000.: 00:00 :0 00:00:08 0:: 003030: 00:000:t 00:3:00 :80 :0 3030:: 0000:0m 3.:
08:88 0 0080: 00:00
008:800 0:: :0:: 0::?» 0: 00000020 0:03 0:000: 0: H 00:80:00 0:00:00»:
0:03 00:00 0:: 0:02 00::00000 000 008:800 0:03 00:00 0: P 00:00:00 0:00 0000:0m :0:
00:90000Q :05: 0000:: :m: :00:000

 

300050200: 0 xm000ma<

83

«0005800 8:808:00

 

000:0 0:: :0 :00: 0:: 0:
0::000: :0:0 0>0w 080% 80080 03: :0 :00m: .0008 0:0 08000::
80:0:::0 30: 00 8000: 0 8880:: :08: 0: 00008 8 00:83

5:280 0:000: :08 008w 0 8008 0: 30: 0030030: :0:000:l

:03:

0000:0008 80:0/m
008—008w 8000: :0 3030.:
90:00:00 30000308 0:09

A00:0::0:00 3000308 0000000:

 

03:00:80: 0.0_=:0w 0:: 80:: 80:0

0:: :0: 000 0800 0 0:::0w 0:: 03m 00:: :0:: 00:00ww00 :0:000H
0:00: 00:00:00 0:: 8:00 0:::0w 080:0 80:0 0 0:03 08280
000808 :0 00=::0m 80:0 00:08:08: 000:000: 000 0:00:

000: 0:0: 8000:m 90:03 :0808: 00 8800: 000 0008 80:08:

. 00 88803 0::3 0:00: 000:000: 380008008 080—20 .00_::0.w

80:0 30 :0808: 00 0030:0 :0:000.~ .::0:0 000_0 0 0: 80::

80:3 0:0:m
00:00:00 0:00

00:00:00 0:00 :0: 8800::

02030 0:80 :00

:00 <0 0.0m

 

0008:0000 :0::m

0000:: a:

80800

 

«0008800: 0 80000.90:

84

«0008800 030000.03

 

00:00:00 0:00 0&0: 0: 000.8000: 000380 :0:000.~ .:08:00
000003 :0::000 80:0 ::000: 0 8:3 00:: 000 :0:0000: 0: 0:00

0: 0:83 0803 02280 :0:: 008085 :0:000H .:08:00 0000003

00:00:00 0:00 :0: w0:000:0

 

. 000 80:0 ::000: 000:0 0 00:00 000 000: 08280 000 :0:000H w0:::00.|00::0:000:0 8000: <: .8: Nim
0:000: 000:0 0:: :0: 0880 0:03 0:00:m0:00
080m .0:00:w0:00 :0003:00: 0:::3 0: :0N:00w:0 0:00 00:0:0800 0000:0020 ::000~:
3000380 0 80:: 0:00 0000 08230 .:00:w0:00 0 0:00:0 0:00:80 0:00 00:0008 :0:000H
0: 0:00: :0003:00: 000 0: 30: 020008 000 003030: :0:000,~ 80:00:00 3000320 0:00: <4 .8: :.::m

 

.:00 0: 80080 0 :0:0000: 000 0880 0: :0::0w0:
00::03 0000:m 8000:m .w0:0:0::: 00:0: 0: 000::0000 :00: :0
3030: 0 8:00:00: 3808800 :00:00 0:: 0: :00 0: :0000:0 0 0:08

0: 8088 000:0 0:: w0::0:080000 0: 000:0 0:: 003030: 8:000?

A:0:0: 0080080 0: 0: 0000::
00:00:00 0:00:
00:00:00 0:00 :0: 00800::

00000000 :0 30300:

00:00:m :0:00m mim

 

0000:8000 :0::m

030:: :0:

80800

 

«0008800: U 8000000~

85

«00000000 00000000.?»

 

0:200 00 00:0:x:0: 0000:0000 00:000: b3000 00-00000

0000230 0:00

 

0 0: 00:0:00 :00::0 0: 0:0:::.: 000000 000 0:00::00: 0000 800000 003000 00-00000: 0000:0m N05
.:0N:00w:0
00:00:w 0 0: 0:00::00 0::: :0000 0:000 000:000: 000 0:00:03 :00:0:0:
00 000: 0::00 :0000:m 0:08:00 000E000 0:03 0:000 :0000:m .:00::00 C80: 00:000:0 0:: 0: 00000:
00000 0 00 :000: 0 0:::3 0:003 00:00::0 :00: 000000000 000 0000260 0:00
::000: :000::0E:000: 00 w0000:0 :00 00000:0 0::: 003030: 800000 02:00:00 0:00 :00 w0:000:0 <0 .:0: :0::

 

33335 0::: :00 00000000 000000.00 00>:0>0: 0:830:00;
:0000:m 303:0:0: 0: ::000 00 w0300000: :00 000000::0 02%
000 0:00 0:000: 020000 00000000 00 000%: w0:3030: 00000000
0 00: :000000L 0:000:00: 000000080 0:303:80: :3 0000:0800

:000: 0::: :0000 0:00: 0:00: 0: :00_.0:0 0 0: 00>:0>0: 003 000:0 00.0

20:0: 00:000:0 0:: 0: 00000:
C000: 00:00::00 0:: 0: 0:0DV
0000230 0:00 :00 w0:000:0.

w000:000w 0000000

8:030 380 :00

 

0000::000Q 000m:

800:: :0:

:00:000

 

0000002000 0 x:00000<

86

.mtw

0w00wc0: 00:0:w0:0: H <1: .:0: ”0:00 0:0 0w00w001: M 0:00 <4 000020000 :0::.: .000 0000:0003 www-301: 00000: :::: 6:00:05 :0 0

0030000 003 00000: 0::: 000 00: 000 0:00:000:0 00: 00 000003000 mmm 000 000:0: 0::: 00:00:00: :00:000 0000000000: 00004 0:02

 

:00000:

0200000: 0:: 80:0 000000:0x0 00:0: 0 000: :000000 .00000: 0:::

0: :0:00 00:: :0 00::000: 003 0000030000 00 0000:0080000 00 :0::
0:000:08 0::: 00:3 00:0:0x0 00000000000: 020000 0:00 :00:000:0
:00:00 0:0:0000 0: 33000 0::: 0: 000:0 00: :00:000: 0: 0003

00 00:00000:0 0 00: 800000 .00000>:0000 00:0060000 00:0:00

0Nb00<
33000 000000:

0000230 0:00 :00 w0:000:0 0000:0m 2:0

 

0000::000Q 000m

0002:: :m: :00:000

 

3000000000 0 00000000:

87

APPENDIX D

Descriptions of Text-based Products

88

«0000000000 0000003000

 

000>0c 00000000: 00000000

 

<4 0000000003 000000 00 00:0 0000000 0000000 000 0000000 m.m4 000:00w00 000m: .m
00000000 0000:00 003000 000

0000:0m 0000 000000 00 0000000000 000000003 0003000 002000000 :.m4 000000003 .0

00:00 <4 000000 0:000w0000-0>0.0 000000 00000000200000 0.000009 m.:4 0000”: .m
000000000 00 0000

00:00 <4 000000 000x0l00000 :000:>:00: 00:: 00 000:00w00 00000 0:w0:m m. :4 00N:§w00 000A: .N
0000,: w00000000:
0% 0200 8 02% 00>: 02:0 8 2203 0.8.0. 080 0200

00:00 <4 00 000:? 0000 0000:0000 00 000:3 00w0:0000: 003 00000 0w004 N44 0000 000:0 .:

00000000000
0,0
0000000 000000000 0000000005 00000000:

 

00000000: 00000-0x0h .00 0000:0002:

Q X:DZmn:0:<

89

«000000000 00000QQE

 

<4 0000033000 00 00000000 00000000 000000000 00005 Nd: 00000000 000000m 4:
00000000 08200 003000 000

0000:0m 0000 000000 00 0000000000 000000.003 00000000: 002000000 0N: 0000:0000? .0:
.00w00 .00 00000.: 030 .00

0000:0m 0000000000 w0000000oo0 00000 0000000 0000000 000 0000:0009 m. : I 000:0 000:0 .0
00000000 0000:00 003000 000

0000:0m 0000 000000 00 0000000000 00000003 0003000 002000000 :64 0000:0000? .0:
00000000 0000:00 003000 000

0000:0m 0000 000000 00 00000000.: 000000003 0003000: 80:00000U :.04 000000003 .0
000000: 0000: w0:000 0000

0000:0m [00000: .00 0000020000 000000 00 000000000 00w00 0:00:03: m a. :64 00000090 0000 .0

00000000000
0%
0000000 000000000 00000005 00000000:

 

«00000000000 Q 00000005

90

0.0000000 3000000000..»

 

.00000: 00:00 0 600.: 00N:00w00 0000 00000000000 000:0

 

<4 .00: 0 0000.: 0000000000: w0:00 0000000000 000000000 000000m :6: 00000”: :000:>:00: .0:
0000 000 000:0:000

00:000m :0:00m 000000 00 0000::00 b: 0000 000000 0000000000 0000009 Nd: 0000000: 00000 .m:
00000000000 000m 0 .00 0000000000000

800% :0:00m 00:0 w0:30:>00 00000 0000000 0000000 000 0000000 :.m:: 0000 000:0 .0:
400000 05 00509000000500

0:00 <4 0000 00000 0 00003 0000000 0000.: w0:0D Nd: 000% .M:
00000 :000 m ”03:03 ”0&00: 00:30:: 0000:: 000:000:
0:000:00 ,00 088:0 0:000:00 ,00 00002 00w0:0000: 0003000

0:00 <4 003 3000000 000 000: 000:00w00 0:0000w 00000 0:w0:m NNE 000E090 000m: .m:

000020000
0%
0000000 000000003 00000005 00000000:

 

0050080 0 0005000..

91

0000 0w00w00_ 00000300— " <4 .00— 9:00 0000 0w00w004 H 300 <4 .0002

 

00000000 000200 003000 000 0000

 

000000m 000000 00 000000000 00003003 0003000 :00—0040000 No.3 000084003 .2
0000.0 9000000000
00050: 0000 ”0000400000 ”mw0_000: b0w0000

<4 .004 0003 300030 000 008 00000090 000000w 000nm 0_w00m 0w: 000000w00 0000 .m—
3000 0 00 000000005 000000 0000000020

<4 .05 @0008 00 00000 000 000000 0000—400 000 000000014‘ N63 003% 80000005 .2

00002030
0.0 ,
0000000 000000020 00000305 00000000

 

«0000000000 Q 000000.”?

92

APPENDIX E

Tables

93

APPENDIX E

Tables
Table 1

School District Statistics
% Free % Less than

. . . , , , Reduced High School
High SES Districts DistrlctConfiguration Classrooms

Observed Lunch a Education b

 

District A Neighborhood schools 1 8% 3%
District B Early Childhood Center 2 9% 1%
District C Neighborhood schools 2 10% 3%
District D Early Childhood Center 2 12% 3%
District E Neighborhood schools 2 14% 2%

 

Low-SES Districts

District F Early Childhood Center 2 64% 33%
District G Neighborhood schools 2 66% 24%
District H Neighborhood schools 2 66% 19%
District I Neighborhood schools 1 67% 17%
District J Early Childhood Center 2 73% 13%

 

a Note. The 2006-2007 Michigan Department of Education School Brealjast and Lunch

. . . . . . b
Information was used as a resource for the Information reported for “118 statlstic. Note.

The 2003 State of Michigan Report of Educational Attainment for District Residents 25
Years and Over database was used as a resource for the information reported for this

statistic.

94

Table 2

Years of Teaching Experience

 

 

 

Teacher District Years of Experience Years Second Grade
High SES

1H.8 A 20 18
2H.3 B l O
3H.4 B l 1
4H.7 C 4 2
5H9 C 14 7
6H.5 D 6 6
7H.6 D 9 3
8H.1 E 3 3
9H.2 E 4 4
Low-SES

1L.1 F 7 4
2L.4 F 24 6
3L.5 G 24 15
4L.6 G 20 10
5L.2 H 18 10
6L.3 H 13 8
7L.7 I 5 4
8L.8 J 35 14
9L.9 J 32 4

 

95

Table 3

Scales and Categories for Coding the [BOP

 

Scales

Descriptions of Categories

 

Inquiry Practices

Inquiry Practices are coded as 1) present or 2) not
present. The implementation of any of the following
steps in the process results in a coding of present.

0 Questioning: determining questions that will direct
further activities.

0 Planning: establishing procedures for another step
in the inquiry process. For example, planning can
include establishing procedures for setting up an
experiment, for collecting data, for synthesizing data
for a report, etc.

0 Data Collection: collecting and reporting
observations.

0 Analysis: making sense of data collected during
observations; using evidence to come to a
conclusion.

0 Reporting: Creating a report that synthesizes
observations or collected data.

0 Reflecting: discussing some aspect of the activity

to review what is known or generate new questions.

 

(table continues)

96

Table 3 (continued)

 

Scales

Descriptions of Categories

 

Inquiry-based Process

Language

1. No process related vocabulary or references to
inquiry used during the activity.

2. Inquiry and related vocabulary used or taught by
the teacher. This includes discussions of the entire
process or vocabulary naming steps in the process

and words like experiment or research.

 

Roles and Responsibilities

1. Teacher leads; children follow. (Traditional model
of instruction).

2a. Teacher provides managed choices for children
2b. Teacher coaches and scaffolds children’s

decisions, choices, and contributions.

 

Context of Instruction

1. Instruction is curriculum bound and includes only
one subject or content area.

2. Instruction includes incidental connections to
other curriculum or life outside of school.

3. Purposeful integrated instruction of two or more
subjects or life outside of school. (e. g., Lesson
includes direct instruction in each domain or there is
a project/connection that is meaningful to the student

beyond the school setting.)

 

(table continues)

97

Table 3 (continued)

 

Scales

Descriptions of Categories

 

Classroom Discourse

Practices

1. Teacher delivers information or manages recitation.
2. Teacher leads a discussion with minimal sharing or
inclusion of children’s ideas.

3. Teacher and children explore and think together.
There tends to be a balance between teacher and
children’s ideas.

4. Children are given the responsibility to manage or

lead discussions. Teacher participates as facilitator.

 

Text-based Products, Authors and Audiences

Text-based Products

This scale is coded as 1) present or 2) not present.
Text-based products are documents that include
recorded language. Examples include journals, letters,
worksheets, classroom charts, graphic organizers, etc.
Products may not be permanent; for example, a list
created on a white board is a text-based product but it

is not permanent.

 

Composing Responsibilities

1. Teacher composes or manages the composing of
text. Children’s participation is minimal.
2. Teacher and children jointly compose text.

3. Children are mostly responsible for composing text.

 

(table continues)

98

Table 3 (continued)

 

Scales

Descriptions of Categories

 

Recording Responsibilities

1. Teacher records or manages the recording of text.
Children’s participation is minimal.

2. Children record text with teacher coaching.

3. Children are responsible and independently record

ICXL

 

Audiences

l. The teacher is the only intended audience.

2. The classroom is the only intended audience.

3. This classroom and other classrooms or persons
within the school building are the intended audience.
4. Persons connected to the greater school
community are the intended audience (e. g.
administrators, parents, other schools).

5. Persons or organizations outside of the immediate

school community (e. g. pen pals, experts from

industry,)

 

99

Table 4

Distribution of IBI Minutes across Classrooms

 

 

 

 

Classrooms District Day 1 Day 2 TOTAL IBI Content Area
High SES
1H.8 A 66 — 66 Integrated LA
2H.3 B 40 34 74 Social Studies
3H.4 B — — — —
4H.7 C — — __. _
5H.9 C — 62 62 Science
6H.5 D 37 54 81 Integrated LA
7H.6 D 8 — 8 Social Studies
8H.1 E 30 59 89 Science
9H.2 E — 99 99 LA Only
High-SES minutes 181 308 489
Low-SES

F — 190 190 LA Only
1L.1
2L.4 F — — _ _
3L.5 G 41 25 76 Science
4L.6 G — — — —
5L.2 H 18 —— 18 Science
6L.3 H — 11 11 LA Only

 

(table continues)

100

Table 4 (continued)

 

 

 

 

Classrooms District Day 1 Day 2 TOTAL IBI Content Area
7L.7 I — — — —

8L.8 J 28 — 28 Science
9L.9 J 53 — 53 Science
Low-SES minutes 140 226 366

High- and low-SES 321 534 855

minutes

 

Note. LA Only = Language arts only; Int. LA = Integrated language arts.
Ws (N =18): 73.5, ns, r = -.25. W, (N =13): 34.5, ns, r = -.25.

X2(1) = 18.46, p < .001, Cramer’s V= .035.

101

Table 5

Distribution of A ll IBI Minutes According to Domain and SES

 

Science Language Arts Social Studies

 

LA Only Integrated LA

 

 

 

Low-SES
Lessons 5 (4) 2 (2) _ _
Minutes 165 201 —— —
High-SES
Lessons 3 (2) 1 (1) 3 (2) 3 (2)
Minutes 151 99 157 82
Total
Lessons 8 3 3 3
Minutes 3 16 300 157 82

 

Note. LA Only = Language arts only; Int. LA = Integrated language arts.
Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of different classrooms from which the

lessons came. For example, 5 (4) means five lessons from four classrooms.

102

Table 6

Distribution of [B] Minutes across IBI Process Phases

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IBI Process Steps
Subject Question Plan Data Analyze Report Reflect
Science
Low-SES 8 18 95 3 10 11
High SES 16 26 94 3 — 12
Science Total 24 44 189 6 10 23
(7.6%) (13.9%) (59.8%) (1.9%) (3.2%) (7.3%)
LA Only
Low-SES 9 15 91 32 74 —
High SES 18 10 55 — 16 —
Integrated LA
High SES — 51 62 — 44 —
Language Arts 27 76 208 32 134 —
Total (5.9%) (16.6%) (45.5%) (7.0%) 29.6%) (0%)
Social Studies
Low-SES — — —— — — —
High SES 18 6 24 —— 34 —
Social Studies 18 6 24 — 34 —
Total (21.9%) ( 7.3%) (29.2%) (0%) (20.8%) (0%)

 

103

(Table continues)

Table 6 (continued)

 

Subject Question Plan Data Analyze Report Reflect

 

IBI Minutes 69 126 421 38 178 23

Total (8%) (14.7%) (49.2%) (4.4%) (20.8%) (2.6%)

 

Note. Data reported in minutes. LA Only = Language arts only; Int. LA = Integrated

language arts. X2 (5) = 63.81, p < .001, Cramer’s V= .273.

104

Table 7

Characteristics of Instruction: Inquiry-related Vocabulary

 

 

 

 

Curricular Domain High SES Low SES
Science question question
observe, observations observe, observations
experiment experiment
test, retest test, retest
report report
data data table
prediction scientific process
investigate, investigation
LA Only questions questions
researchers, researching research
information information
facts facts
data
report
survey
Integrated LA information
facts

data organizer

research

105

(Table continues)

Table 7 (continued)

 

 

Curricular Domain High SES Low SES
Social Studies questions

interviews

presentations

reports

 

Note. LA Only = Language arts only; Int. LA = Integrated language arts.

106

Table 8

Characteristics of Instruction: Use of Inquiry-related Language

 

 

Inquiry-related Language Not-present Present
Low-SES
Science 20 145
LA Only 1 17 ' 84
Integrated LA —— —

Social Studies — —

 

 

 

 

Low-SES Total 137 229
High SES
Science 42 109
LA Only 43 56
Integrated LA 91 66
Social Studies 34 48
High SES Total 210 279
Total 347 508

 

Note. LA Only = Language arts only; Int. LA = Integrated language arts. Data reported
are minutes of activities that included some mention of IBI vocabulary. Chi square
compares minutes from the activities that included some mention of IBI vocabulary and

the number of minutes from activities not including IBI vocabulary across groups.

X~’(1)= 2.63, ns. Cramer’s V: .056.

107

Table 9

Characteristics of Instruction: Context

 

 

 

 

 

 

Context 1 2 3
Curriculum only Incidental Purposeful
integration integration
Low-SES
Science 124 41 —
LA Only — 201 —
Integrated LA — — —
Social Studies — — —
Low-SES Total 124 242 —
High SES
Science 151 —— —
LA Only — 99 —
Integrated LA — — 157
Social Studies — — 82
High SES Total 151 99 239
Total 275 341 239

 

Note. LA Only = Language arts only; Int. LA = Integrated language arts.

Data reported in minutes.

108

Table 10

Characteristics of Instruction: Roles and Responsibilities

 

Roles & responsibilities 1 2

 

Teacher leads A. Managed choice B. Children lead

 

Low—SES

Science 165 — —
LA Only 123 78 —
Integrated LA — — —

Social Studies — _ __

 

 

 

 

Low-SES Total 288 78 —
High SES
Science 79 41 31
LA Only 92 73 —
Integrated LA 44 47 ——
Social Studies —— 8 74
High SES Total 215 169 105
Total 503 247 105

 

Note. LA Only = Language arts only; Int. LA = Integrated language arts. Data reported in

minutes. X2(1, N = 855) = 104.19, p < .001, Cramer’s V: .349.

109

Table 1 1

Characteristics of Instruction: Classroom Discourse Practices

 

 

Discourse Practices 1 2 3 4
Teacher Direct Some Children’s Equal Children
Instruction Ideas Participation Lead
Low-SES
Science 103 44 — 18
LA Only 192 — 9 —
Integrated LA — — — —

Social Studies — _ _ _

 

 

 

 

Low-SES Total 295 217 9 18

High SES
Science 9 93 43 6
LA Only 45 35 19 ——
Integrated LA 61 81 — 15
Social Studies , — 8 37 37
High SES Total 115 217 99 56
Total 275 341 239 84

 

Note. LA Only = Language arts only; Int. LA = Integrated language arts. Data reported in

minutes. X2 (3, N = 855) = 277.8, p < .001, Cramer’s Phi = .57

110

Table 12

Characteristics of Instruction: Composing T ext-based Products

 

 

Composing 1 2 3
Teacher Teacher & Children
Managed Children Independently

Low-SES

Science 82 — 20

LA Only 151 41 —

Integrated LA — —— ——

Social Studies — — —

 

 

 

 

Low-SES Total 233 41 20
High SES
Science — 10 41
LA Only 63 — 10
Integrated LA — 20 71
Social Studies — — 37
High SES Total 63 30 159
Total 296 71 179

 

Note. LA Only = Language arts only; Int. LA = Integrated language arts. Data

reported in minutes. X 2 (2, N = 546) = 205.26, p < .001, Cramer’s Phi = .613.

111

Table 13

Characteristics of Instruction: Recording Text-based Products

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recording 1 2 3
Teacher Teacher & Children
Managed Children Independently
Low-SES
Science 11 — 91
LA Only 121 11 60
Integrated LA — — —
Social Studies — — —
Low-SES Total 132 11 151
High SES
Science 10 — 41 ,
LA Only 20 —— 73
Integrated LA — — 71
Social Studies — 13 24
High SES Total 30 13 209
Total 296 71 179

 

Note. LA Only = Language arts only; Int. LA = Integrated language arts. Data

reported in minutes.

X2 (2, N = 546) = 70.922, p < .001, Cramer’s Phi = .360.

112

Table 14

Characteristics of Instruction: Audiences

 

 

Audiences Teacher Classroom
Low-SES

Science 64 38

LA Only 74 118
Integrated LA — —

Social Studies — —

 

 

 

 

Low-SES Total 138 156

High SES
Science 28 23
LA Only 63 10
Integrated LA 47 44
Social Studies — 37
High SES Total 138 114
Total 276 270

 

Note. LA Only = Language arts only; Int. LA = Integrated
language arts. No instruction fitting categories 3 through 5
was observed. Data reported in minutes.

X2 (1, N = 546) = 3.32, ns, Cramer’s Phi = .078

113

Table 15

IBI Instruction and Teachers’ Years of Experience

 

 

Classrooms IBI Years of SES Content Area
Minutes Experience

IL] 190 7 Low LA Only

9H.2 99 4 High LA Only

SH] 89 3 High Science

6H.5 81 6 High ‘ Integrated LA

3L.5 76 24 Low Science

2H.3 74 1 High Social Studies

1H.8 66 20 High Integrated LA

5H.9 62 14 High Science

9L.9 53 32 Low Science

8L.8 28 35 Low Science

5L.2 l8 18 Low Science

6L.3 11 13 Low LA Only

7H.6 8 9 High Social Studies

3H.4 0 1 High —

4H.7 0 4 High —

7L.7 0 5 Low —

4L.6 0 20 Low —

2L.4 0 24 Low —

 

Note. LA Only = Language arts only; Int. LA = Integrated language arts

114

APPENDIX F

Figures

115

0000000 0600004 05 .00 000000 00.0 000000 00000000 2: 0000 0w00w00_ =0 .00 0040540005 0 0.00003

mczoocmm 00200030 055090. 00:00:00 0000 05:00:...

W\\\,.s__t

 

\,

4
0
.\

000 :9:-
000 26.. as

 

 

0500:0000

 

 

 

00.0%?—

m vQQZm—mm<

0

ON

ov

cm

on

Go?

GNP

0!.

Wu!“

116

72 LOW SES
I HIGH SES

 

 

 

 

140

120

100

117

Reflecting

Reporting

Planning Data Collection Analyzing

Questioning

Figure 2. Distribution of science IBI minutes across the phases of the inquiry process.

0000000 00004000 000 «00 0000000 000 000000 00000000 E: 000000 000000 00 0000400005 .M. 00000000

000 10.:-
0 000 26.00

0:000:00

 

0.5000001 mc_~>_0c< 00:00:00 0000 05000.0 050000000

 

 

or

3

ON

sternum

mm

on

mm

ov

118

REFERENCES

 

 

119

REFERENCES

Abd-El-Khalik, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz,
M., et a1. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science
Education, 88(3), 397-419.

Academic Benchmarks (2008). Database of standards. Retrieved March 7, 2008, from
http://www.academicbenchmarks.com/

Alvarado, A. E., & Herr, P. R. (2003). Inquiry-based learning using everyday objects:
Hands-on instructional strategies that promote active learning in grades 3-8.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Anyon, J. (1981). Social class and school knowledge. Curriculum Inquiry, 11(1), 3-42.

Audet, R. H., & Jordan., L. K. (2005). Integrating inquiry across the curriculum.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Baker, L. (2004). Reading comprehension and science inquiry: Metacognitive
connections. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science
instruction: perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 468). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.

Beach, R., & Myers, J. (2001). Inquiry-based English instruction: Engaging students in
life and literature. New York: Teachers College Press.

Billman, A. K. (2006). Inquiry-based instruction observation protocol (IBOP).
Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University.

Billman, A. K. (2007). Development and pilot of the inquiry-based observation protocol.
Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University.

Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A.
(1991). Motivating Proj ect-Based Learning: Sustaining the Doing, Supporting the
Learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3 & 4), 369-398.

Bolinger, K., & Warren, W. J. (2007). Methods practiced in social studies instruction: A

review of public school teachers' strategies. International Journal of Social
Education, 22(1), 68-84.

Bristor, V. J. (1994). Combining reading and with science to enhance content area
achievement and attitude. Reading Horizons, 35(1), 30-43.

Brophy, J. (2004). Motivating students to learn. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Ehrlbaum.

120

Brown, J. 8., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of
learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-41 .

Cecil, N. L. (1995). The art of inquiry: Questioning strategies for K—6 classrooms.
Winnipeg: Peguis Publishers.

Cecil, N. L., & Lauritzen, P. (1994). Literacy and the arts for the integrated classroom:
Alternative ways of knowing. New York: Longman.

Cervetti, G., Pearson, P. D., Barber, J ., Hiebert, E. H., & Bravo, M. (2007). Integrating
literacy and science. In M. Pressley, A. K. Billman, K. H. Perry, K. E. Reffitt & J.

M. Reynolds (Eds), Shaping literacy achievement: Research we have, research
we need (pp. 157-174). Mahwah, NJ: Guilford.

Comber, B., Thompson, P., & Wells, M. (2001). Critical literacy finds a "place": Writing
and social action in a low-income Australian grade 2/3 classroom. The
Elementary School Journal, 101(4), 451-464.

de Boo, M. (1999). Enquiring children, challenging teaching. Philadelphia: Open
University Press.

Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: D. C. Heath.

Dewey, J. (1990). The school and society; and, The child and the curriculum. London:
University of Chicago Press. (Originally published 1956).

Diffily, D., & Sassman, C. (2002). Project-based Ieaming with young children.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Dolph, R., Goldstein, D., Lee, S., Lepori, K., Schneider, S., & Venkatesan, S. (2007). The
status of science education in the Bay Area: Research brief: Lawrence Hall of
Science, University of California, Berkeley; California.

Duke, N. K. (2000). For the rich it’s richer: Print experiences and environments offered
to children in very low- and very high-socioeconomic status first-grade

classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 3 7(2), 441—478.

DuVall, R. (2001). Inquiry in science: From curiosity to understanding. Primary Voices,
10(1), 3-9.

Entwisle, D., & Astone, N. M. (1994). Some practical guidelines for measuring youth's
race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Child Development, 65(6), 1521-1540.

Erickson, L. G. (2003). Applied literacy in the middle grades: Introducing children to
authentic inquiry. New York: Allyn & Bacon.

I21

Etheredge, S., & Rudnitsky, A. (2003). Introducing students to scientific inquiry: How do
we know what we know? Boston: Pearson Education.

Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: SAGE.

F leiss, J. L., & Cohen, J. (1973). The equivalence of weighted kappa and the interclass
correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 33, 61 3-619.

Garson, G. David (n.d.). Reliability. From Statsnotes: Topics in multivariate analysis.
Retrieved 03/02/2008 from http://wwwz.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/
statnotehtm.

Giroux, H. A. (1980). Beyond correspondence theory: Notes on the dynamics of
educational reproduction and transformation. Curriculum Inquiry, 10(3), 225-247.

Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1997). Looking in classrooms (7th ed.). New York:
Longman.

Gray, E. (2001). A literacy growth spurt during inquiry: Tommy's story. Language Arts,
78(4), 325-332.

Greeno, J. G., Collins, A., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. C.
Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 15-46).
New York: Macmillan.

Guthrie, J. T., Van Meter, P., McCann, A. D., Wigfield, A., Bennett, L., Poundstone, C.
C., et a1. (1996). Growth of literacy engagement: Changes in motivations and
strategies during concept-oriented reading instruction. Reading Research
Quarterly, 31(3), 306-332.

Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & Perencevich, K. C. (2004). Motivating reading
comprehension: Concept-oriented reading instruction. Mahwah, New Jersey:
Lawrence Ehrlbaum.

Haberman, M. (1991). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi Delta
Kappan, 73(4), 290-294.

Hapgood, S., Magnusson, S. J ., & Palincsar, A. (2004). Teacher, text, and experience: A
case study of young children's scientific inquiry. Journal of Learning Sciences,
13(4), 455-505.

Harste, J. C., & Leland, C. H. (1998). No quick fix: Education as inquiry. Reading
Research and Instruction, 3 7(3), 191-205.

122

Hidi, S. (2001). Interest, reading, and Ieaming: Theoretical and practical considerations.
Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 191-209.

Hill, L. T., Stremmel, A. J ., & Fu, V. R. (2005). Teaching as Inquiry: Rethinking the
curriculum in early childhood education. Boston: Pearson.

Howe, A. C. (2002). Engaging children in science (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Merrill Prentice Hall.

Jalongo, M. R. (2007). Reasserting the role of motivation and interest in children's
academic achievement. Early Childhood Education 395-407.

Joyce, 8., & Weil, M. (1972). Models of teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kallery, M., & Psillos, D. (2002). What happens in the early years science classroom?
The reality of teachers’ curriculum implementation activities. European Early
childhood Education Research Journal, 10(2), 49-61.

Katz, L. G., & Chard, S. C. (2000). Engaging children 's minds: The project approach
(2nd ed.). Stampford, CN: Ablex Publishing.

Kennedy, D. (1996). Forming Philosophical Communities of Inquiry in Early Childhood
Classrooms. Early Childhood Development and Care, 120, 1-15.

Kilpatrick, W. H. (1918). The project method. T eacher's College Record, 19(4), 319-335.

Klein, E., Hammrich, P. L., Bloom, S., & Ragins, A. (2000). Language development and
science inquiry: The Head Start on Science and Communication program. Early
Childhood Research and Practice, 2(2). Retrieved 03/02/2008 from
http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/

Krajcik, J., Czemiak, C., & Berger, C. (1999). Teaching children science: A project-
based approach. New York: McGraw Hill.

Krogh, S., & Morehouse, P. (2008). The early childhood curriculum: Inquiry learning
through integration. New York: McGraw Hill.

Lave, J ., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
New York: Cambridge University Press.

Llewellyn, D. (2002). Inquire within: Implementing inquiry-based science standards.
Thousand Oakes, CA: Corwin.

Loeb, S. & Beteille, T. (in press). Teacher quality and teacher labor markets. In G. Sykes
& B. Schneider (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Policy Research. New York:
Routledge.

123

 

Magnusson, S. J ., & Palincsar, A. S. (2004). Learning from text designed to model
scientific thinking in inquiry-based science instruction. In E. W. Saul (Ed.),
Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and
practice (pp. 468). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Martin, R., Sexton, C., & Franklin, T. (2005). Teaching science for all children: Inquiry
lessons for constructing understanding. New York: Pearson.

Michigan Department of Education (2008). Grade level content standards. Retrieved
August 7, 2008, from http://wwwmichigangov.

Michigan Center for Educational Performance and Education, (2007). Michigan
Department of Education School Breakfast and Lunch Information. Retrieved
from http://www.michigan.gov.

Mills, H., Donnelly, A. (2001). From the ground up: Creating a culture of inquiry.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Mills, H., O’Keefe, T., & Jennings, LB. (2004). Looking closely and listening carefully:
Learning literacy through inquiry. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of
English.

McCarty, T. L., Wallace, S., Lynch, R. H., & Benally, A. (1991). Classroom inquiry and
Navajo Ieaming styles: A call for reassessment. Anthropology and Education
Quarterly, 22, 42-59.

Metz, K. E. (1995). Reassessment of the developmental constraints on children’s science
instruction. Review of Educational Research, 65(2), 93-127.

Nash, R. (2004). Beyond reproduction theory: A multilevel explanation of
inequality/difference in education. In M. Olssen (Ed.), Culture and learning:
Access and opportunity in the classroom (pp. 73-74). Greenwich, CN:
Information Age Publishing.

National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards:
A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. 107-110. Available at www.cdgov/
legislation/ESEAOZ.

Nolen, S. B. (2001). Constructing literacy in kindergarten: Task structure, collaboration,
and motivation. Cognition and Instruction, 19(1), 95-142.

124

 

Ott, R.L. and Longnecker, M. (2001). An introduction to statistical methods and data
analysis (5th Ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury.

Pearce, C. R. (1999). Nurturing inquiry. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Pinar, W. F., & Bowers, C. A. (1992). Politics of curriculum: Origins, controversies, and

significance of cirtical perspectives. Review of Research in Education, 18, 163-
1 90.

Postman, N., & Weingartner, C. (1969). Teaching as a subversive activity. New York:
Delacourte Press.

Pratt, H., & Pratt, N. (2004). Integrating Science and Literacy Instruction with a Common
Goal of Learning Science Content. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in
literacy and science instruction (pp. 395-405). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.

Purcell-Gates, V., Duke, N. K., & Martineau, J. A. (2007). Learning to read and write
genre-specific text: Roles of authentic experience and explicit teaching. Reading
Research Quarterly, 42(1), 8-45.

Purcell-Gates, V., Jacobson, E., & Degener, S. (2004). Print literacy development:
Uniting cognitive social practice theories. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Renninger, K. A., HIdi, S., & Krapp, A. (Eds.). (1992). The role of interest in learning
and development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rist, R. C. (2000). HER Classic: Student social class and teacher expectations: The Self-
fulfilling prophecy in ghetto education. Harvard Educational Review, 70(3), 257-
301.

Rivera, H. & Tharp, R. G. (2004). Socio-cultural activity settings in the classroom: A
study of a classroom observation system. In H. Waxman & R.G.Tharp & R. S.
Hilberg (Eds.), Observational Research in US. classrooms: New approaches for
understanding cultural and linguistic diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship thinking: Cognitive development in social context.
New York: Oxford University Press.

Rogovin, P. (2001). The research workshop: Bringing the world into your classroom.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

125

Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (1992). A Curriculum Strategy that Expands Time for
In-Depth Elementary Instruction by Using Science-based Reading Strategies:

Effects of a Year-Long Study in Grade F our. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 29(6), 545-554.

Roser, N. L., & Keehn, S. (2002). Fostering thought, talk, and inquiry: Linking literature
and social studies. The Reading Teacher, 55(5), pp. 416-425.

Samarapungavan, A., Panayota, M., & Patrick, H. (2008). Learning science through
inquiry in kindergarten. Science Education, 92(5), 868-908.

Saul, E. W. (Ed.). (2004). Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction:
Perspectives on theory and practice. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.

Saul, E. W., Reardon, J ., Pearce, C. R., Dieckman, D., & Nuetze, D. (2002). Science
workshop: Reading, writing, and thinking like a scientist (2nd ed.). Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.

Schiefele, U. (1998). Individual interest and Ieaming: What we know and what we do not
know. In L. Hoffmann, A. Krapp, K. A. Renninger & J. Baumert (Eds.), Interest
and learning: Proceedings of the Seeon conference on interest and gender. Kiel,
Germany: University of Kiel, Institute for Science Education.

Schmidt, P. R., Gillen, S., Zollo, T. C., & Stone, R. (2002). Literacy Learning and
Scientific Inquiry: Children respond. The Reading Teacher, 55(6), 534-548.

Schraw, G., Flowerday, T., & Lehman, S. (2001). Increasing situational interest in the
classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 211-224.

Seigel, M., & Fonzi, J ., M. (1995). The Practice of Reading in an Inquiry-Oriented
Mathematics Class. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(4), 632-673.

Sharnlin, M. L. (2001). Inquiry in kindergarten: Learning literacy through science.
Primary Voices K-6, 10(1), pp. 10-15.

Short, K. G., Schroeder, J ., Laird, J ., Kauffman, G., Ferguson, M. J ., & Crawford, K. M.

(1996). Learning together through inquiry: From Columbus to integrated
curriculum. Portland, Maine: Stenhouse.

Swan, E. A. (2003). Concept oriented reading instruction: Engaging classrooms, lifelong
learners. New York: Guilford Press.

Thier, M., & Daviss, B. (2002). The New Science Literacy: Using Language Skills to
Help Students Learn Science. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemarm.

126

 

Turner, J. C. (1995). The influence of classroom contexts on young children's motivation
for literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 410-441.

Turner, J. C., & Meyer, D. K. (2000). Studying and understanding the instructional
contexts of classrooms: Using our past to forge our future. Educational
Psychologist, 35(2), 69-85.

Veal, W. R., & Elliott, T. D. (1996). Science education reform in a rural county.

Valadez, J. D., & Freve, Y. (2002) A preliminary summary of findings from a study of the
eflects of hands-n/inquiry-based instruction on SA T9 reading scores. Retrieved
08/07/2008 from: httnz//sustainabilitv2002.terc.edu/invoke.cfm/page/143.

Volet, S., & Simone, V. (Eds.). (2001). Motivation in learning contexts: Theoretical
advances and methodological advances. New York: Pergamon.

Waxman, H. C., Tharp, R. G., & Hilberg, R. S. (Eds.). (2004). Observational research in
US. classrooms: New approaches for understanding cultural and linguistic
diversity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wells, G. (2000). Dialogic inquiry in education: Building on the legacy of Vygotsky. In
V ygotskian perspectives on literacy research: Constructing meaning through
collaborative research (pp. pp.51-85). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.

Wells, G., (Ed.). (2001). Action Talk and Text: Learning and Teaching Through Inquiry.
New York: Teachers College Press.

Whitin, P. (2007). The ties that bind: Emergent literacy and scientific inquiry. Language
Arts, 85(1), 20-30.

Wilks, S. (1995). Critical and creative thinking: Strategies for classroom inquiry.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of “inquiry:” How preservice teachers reproduce the
discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 41(5), 481-512.

Wolk, S. (1994). Project-Based Learning; Pursuits with a Purpose. Educational
Leadership, 52(3), 4245.

Worth, K., & Grollman, S. (2003). Worms, shadows and Whirlpools: Science in the early
childhood classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

127

Wray, D. (1999). Inquiry in the classroom: Creating it, encouraging it, enjoying it.
Toronto, Ontario.

Zuckerman, G. A., Chudinova, E. V., & Khavkin, E. E. (1998). Inquiry as a Pivotal
Element of Knowledge Acquisition Within the Vygotskian Paradigm: Building a
Science Curriculum for the Elementary School. Cognition and Instruction, 16(2),

128

.. .........r~..v.,.-,..,... .
r "g” 'p.~-,u..u»~.u.7 -~v‘r~\v1-D- I a ,
{I}. -. . -

 

     

W
3

       
 

HH‘AH

ill/ll

12

l

f;
9

   

ll

3

  

956

 

fl

1

militia"

    
       
      

 

ARYE'

Ill/I

9328