 |
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 16, Issue 1, Article 2 (Jun., 2015)
|
|
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 16, Issue 1, Article 2 (Jun., 2015)
|
Pertinent information was gained through the data collection for the current research study about the effects of Inquiry-Based Learning in science with fifth-grade students. Due to the decline of student scores on high-stakes tests in the area of science and a lack of in-depth understanding of science among students in the United States, there was a need to research effective methods of teaching science and to collect data on which methods were most effective in teaching science to young students. Science students in the United States had lower achievement than science students of other nations, were not able to compete with students of other nations, and did not exhibit a deep understanding of subject areas in science. Traditional methods of teaching science, such as lecturing and experiments, have been effective, but further research on the effectiveness of using IBL methods to teach science to elementary students was needed. Of the four fifth-grade science classes at the research school, two classes participated in the current research study. The data collection instruments used to determine the effectiveness of using IBL for improving science instruction compared to traditional instruction were the pretest/posttest, attitude survey, engagement checklist, and fieldnotes.
The mean scores, standard deviations, and a comparison of the means for the two groups from the pretest and posttest results are provided in Table 2.
Table 2. Comparisons of Pretest and Posttest Results for Traditional Instruction and Inquiry-Based Instruction
Traditional Instruction Group
The results of the data analysis revealed that the science pretest scores for the traditional group were lower than the posttest scores. The science pretest scores for the inquiry group were also lower than the posttest scores. Paired samples t-tests indicated that both the traditional instruction group and the inquiry instruction group made significant gains from pretest to posttest.
Cohen’s d was computed to determine the practical significance of the difference between posttest scores of the traditional instruction group and the inquiry instruction group. The treatment had a small effect (d=.22) on achievement scores. Students participating in traditional instruction would be expected to score 58% below a person participating in the inquiry instruction group.
The mean gain for the traditional instruction group was insignificant compared to the mean gain for the inquiry-based instruction group. The scores indicated that students who received inquiry-based instruction made minimal gains in achievement compared to students who received traditional, teacher-centered instruction. Table 3 compares the mean gain for students who received traditional instruction to the mean gain for students who received inquiry-based instruction.
Table 3. Comparisons of Traditional Instruction Group and Inquiry-Based Learning Group Gains from Pretest to Posttest
Class Pretest M Posttest M Gains Mean t-value p Traditional Instruction Group
The teacher-researcher administered a Science Attitudes Survey (SAS) prior to the intervention and again at the conclusion of the intervention. The survey was used to gather data about the overall attitudes of students toward learning science and the importance of using science in their everyday lives. Prior to the intervention, SAS results indicated that students in the traditional instruction group enjoyed learning about science. At the conclusion of the intervention, SAS results indicated that the attitudes of students in traditional instruction regarding learning about science had improved significantly. The statistical significant difference in the traditional instruction students’ attitudes towards science from pre-intervention to post-intervention was in the category of enjoying learning about science, which ultimately resulted in higher student engagement. Students’ attitudes about the importance of science showed a slight increase on the survey by the completion of the unit. Student’s attitudes around the inquiry about science had a slightly larger increase compared to attitudes about importance of science. However, student attitudes that science is important in their understanding of the world around them showed an insignificant increase at the conclusion of the intervention. Overall, SAS results indicated that students in the traditional group ranked each question by its importance to them in the following order (a) enjoyed learning about science, (b) wanted to know about science, (c) thought science would help them understand the world, and (d) thought science was important. According to students’ comments on the SAS, a majority of students in the traditional group remarked that they enjoyed doing experiments in science. The second most frequently written response on the SAS by students in the traditional group was that they liked to learn about science. A comment written by one student in the traditional group was, “I love to learn what things do.” All four questions revealed positive gains in attitudes that students had about learning in science. The mean, standard deviation, and gains in attitudes from the traditional instruction students’ pre- and post-intervention SAS are reported in Table 4.
Table 4. Comparison of Traditional Instruction Group Pre- and Post-Intervention Science Attitude Survey Responses
I enjoy learning about science.
I want to know about science. Learning more about science will help me understand the world around me. *p.05. **p<.01
Table 5 reported means and standard deviations for the SAS responses from the inquiry-based learning instruction students’ pre- and post-intervention. SAS results indicated a minimal change in student attitudes over the course of the intervention in science. Students’ attitudes increased slightly by the conclusion of the intervention when asked if they wanted to know about science. The mean scores did not change when students in the inquiry-based learning group were asked if they thought learning about science was important. The SAS results indicated a decrease from the pre- and post intervention results when IBL students were asked whether they liked learning about science. A decrease was observed from the pre- to posttest responses when students in the IBL group were asked whether science would help them understand the world around them.
Overall, SAS results indicated that students in the IBL group ranked each question by importance about science in the following order (a) wanted to know about science, (b) thought learning about science was important, (c) enjoyed learning about science, and (d) thought learning about science would help them understand the world around them. A positive gain was revealed in one of the four questions, and the mean score declined in two of the SAS questions. There was no statistically significant difference in the IBL instruction students’ attitudes towards science from pre-intervention to post-intervention. The mean, standard deviation, and gains in attitudes from the IBL students are reported in Table 5.
Table 5. Comparison of Inquiry Instruction Group Pre- and Post-Intervention Science Attitude Survey Responses
I enjoy learning about science.
I want to know about science. Learning more about science will help me understand the world around me. In order to determine the effect of IBL strategies on student engagement during the intervention period, the teacher-researcher implemented a Student Engagement Checklist (Appendix C). The checklist was used three times each week during the 6-week intervention period for the traditional and the inquiry groups. Students who were fully engaged and participated in all aspects of the lesson activities earned a score of two for the class period. To be considered fully engaged a student was observed paying attention in classroom discussion, participating in classroom discussions, completing assigned reading, and being actively involved in group work. Students who were engaged and participated in the lessons with no more than one redirection from the teacher-researcher earned a score of one. Students who had to be frequently redirected by the teacher-researcher to properly participate exhibited out of seat behavior, talked, daydreamed, and played with materials in a way they were not intended earned a score of zero and were examples of not being engaged in the lesson. Of the 20 students in the traditional class, 13 exhibited full engagement 63% of the time. The IBL group, however, had 22 students with 79% full engagement, which was 17 students. As shown in Table 6, students who received the IBL intervention exhibited greater engagement behaviors than students who participated in the class with traditional instruction.
Table 6. Student Engagement Results
Class Fully Engaged Engaged Not Engaged Traditional Instruction
The teacher-researcher recorded fieldnotes during the intervention period to record off task behaviors of students, document comments made by students about the tasks, and record the percentage of on task behaviors exhibited by students. Data from fieldnotes indicated that students in both groups who earned a zero on the Student Engagement Checklist (Appendix C) exhibited behaviors such as talking, playing with materials, and out of seat conduct.
Fieldnotes recorded during IBL intervention indicated that students were more engaged, focused, and on task. The IBL students engaged daily in problem-solving discussions that led them to complete tasks quickly and with little redirection from the teacher-researcher. Comments such as, “This is fun,” and “Oh, I see how you do it!” were noted from students in the IBL group indicating an excitement about solving a problem through discovery. The IBL students participated in more brainstorming and sharing of ideas during small group time, as students worked together as partners to solve problems. An example of a problem that students were required to solve included using a battery, light bulb, and paper clip to light the bulb. By working cooperatively, students assigned tasks to each other, for example, holding the bulb in a certain position or touching the wire in a particular area to make the bulb light up. Entries from student journals revealed a high level of understanding about science concepts. Students wrote more detailed journal entries, which indicated a higher level of understanding and engagement. Overall, a higher level of student engagement was observed in the IBL group.
Fieldnotes recorded during the traditional instruction time indicated that students did not engage in as much idea sharing about science and had to be frequently redirected back to the task and discussions. As the teacher-researcher assisted one group, other groups frequently exhibited off task and out of seat behaviors. Observations were recorded of students who played with materials inappropriately, such as making a balloon fly across the room as opposed to using the balloon to create static electricity. Students frequently did not follow directions, which resulted in a loss of instructional time. While performing a lab about chemical change, students had been instructed to perform the task once. However, it was recorded in fieldnotes that one group of students in the traditional class continued to perform the task repeatedly, which resulted in a loss of time and wasted materials. Comments such as, “This isn’t working!” and “How do we do this?” were recorded in the fieldnotes when students were not properly following directions. Although students had been assigned lab partners prior to beginning a lab, students in the traditional group frequently tried to change lab partners before the lessons started. The students who attempted to change partners and students who did not willingly participate in the lesson because they were not seated in a preferred chair, also resulted in a loss of class time. Off task behaviors were observed when students used materials for experiments in inappropriate ways such as throwing objects or bending and breaking materials. Entries in traditional students’ journals were brief and contained less detail about tasks performed in science lab. As students in the traditional group shared journal entries with the class, they provided a brief synopsis of the lesson that had been completed with little or no in depth analysis as to why they observed the results from the experiment. Overall, a lower level of student engagement was observed in the traditional group. Based on the SAS and fieldnotes, the teacher-researcher determined that students participating in the IBL intervention exhibited a higher level of engagement and on task behaviors.
Copyright (C) 2015 HKIEd APFSLT. Volume 16, Issue 1, Article 2 (Jun., 2015). All Rights Reserved.
