Implementing Inquiry-Based Learning in a Diverse Classroom : Investigating Strategies of Scaffolding and Students' Views of Scientific Inquiry [1 ed.] 9783832592431, 9783832545918

Citation preview

Studien zum Physik- und Chemielernen H. Niedderer, H. Fischler, E. Sumfleth [Hrsg.]

247

Sandra Puddu

Implementing Inquiry-based Learning in a Diverse Classroom Investigating Strategies of Scaffolding and Students’ Views of Scientific Inquiry

λογος

Studien zum Physik- und Chemielernen Herausgegeben von Hans Niedderer, Helmut Fischler und Elke Sumfleth

Diese Reihe im Logos-Verlag bietet ein Forum zur Ver¨offentlichung von wissenschaftlichen Studien zum Physik- und Chemielernen. In ihr werden Ergebnisse empirischer Untersuchungen zum Physik- und Chemielernen dargestellt, z. B. u¨ ber Sch¨ulervorstellungen, Lehr-/Lernprozesse in Schule und Hochschule oder Evaluationsstudien. Von Bedeutung sind auch Arbeiten u¨ ber Motivation und Einstellungen sowie Interessensgebiete im Physik- und Chemieunterricht. Die Reihe f¨uhlt sich damit der Tradition der empirisch orientierten Forschung in den Fachdidaktiken verpflichtet. Die Herausgeber hoffen, durch die Herausgabe von Studien hoher Qualit¨at einen Beitrag zur weiteren Stabilisierung der physik- und chemiedidaktischen Forschung und zur F¨orderung eines an den Ergebnissen fachdidaktischer Forschung orientierten Unterrichts in den beiden F¨achern zu leisten.

Hans Niedderer

Helmut Fischler

Elke Sumfleth

Studien zum Physik- und Chemielernen Band 247

Sandra Puddu

Implementing Inquiry-based Learning in a Diverse Classroom: Investigating Strategies of Scaffolding and Students’ Views of Scientific Inquiry

Logos Verlag Berlin

λογος

Studien zum Physik- und Chemielernen Hans Niedderer, Helmut Fischler, Elke Sumfleth [Hrsg.]

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Bibliothek Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at http://dnb.ddb.de.

c Copyright Logos Verlag Berlin GmbH 2017

All rights reserved.

ISBN 978-3-8325-4591-8

Logos Verlag Berlin GmbH Comeniushof, Gubener Str. 47, D-10243 Berlin Tel.: +49 (0)30 / 42 85 10 90 Fax: +49 (0)30 / 42 85 10 92 http://www.logos-verlag.de

DISSERTATION / DOCTORAL THESIS Titel der Dissertation /Title of the Doctoral Thesis

„Implementing Inquiry-based Learning in a Diverse Classroom: Investigating Strategies of Scaffolding and Students’ Views of Scientific Inquiry“

verfasst von / submitted by

Mag. Sandra Puddu

angestrebter akademischer Grad / in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Doktorin der Naturwissenschaften (Dr. rer. nat.)

Wien, 2017 / Vienna 2017

Studienkennzahl lt. Studienblatt / degree programme code as it appears on the student record sheet:

A 091 419

Dissertationsgebiet lt. Studienblatt / field of study as it appears on the student record sheet:

Chemie

Betreut von / Supervisor:

Univ.-Prof. Dr. Anja Lembens

Mitbetreut von / Co-Supervisor:

-

Table of Contents 1

Introduction........................................................................................ 7

2

Requirements for a Reflective Citizen .............................................. 10

3

Inquiry-based Learning .................................................................... 14 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

4

The Abilities to do Inquiry ........................................................... 16 Effectiveness of Inquiry-based Learning .................................... 20 Levels of Inquiry ......................................................................... 21 Nature of Science and Nature of Scientific Inquiry ..................... 29

Diversity........................................................................................... 33 4.1 Diversity and Migration............................................................... 34 4.2 Diversity and Language ............................................................. 36 4.2.1 Language and Migration ....................................................... 36 4.2.2 Language and Science – Scientific Terminology .................. 38 4.3 Diversity and Culture .................................................................. 39

5

Inquiry-based Learning and Diversity............................................... 41

6

Scaffolding....................................................................................... 45 6.1 Scaffolding of Inquiry-based Learning ........................................ 45 6.2 Scaffolding of Language ............................................................ 48 6.3 Cultural Considerations concerning Scaffolding ......................... 49

7

Conclusion....................................................................................... 51

8

Research Design ............................................................................. 52 8.1 Research Area ........................................................................... 52 8.2 Research Questions .................................................................. 53 8.3 Methods ..................................................................................... 53 8.3.1 Methods of Data Collection................................................... 55 8.3.2 Methods of Analyzing Data ................................................... 60

9

Background Information about the Class ......................................... 73 9.1 Diversity of the Class ................................................................. 73 9.1.1 Language ............................................................................. 73 9.1.2 Educational Background ....................................................... 75 9.1.3 Age ....................................................................................... 76 9.2 Characterization of the Class ..................................................... 77 9.3 The Class through the Lens of Questionnaires and Numbers .... 79 9.3.1 Attitudes towards Science and Subject-related Self-concept 79 9.3.2 Analysis of the CFT-20R Test............................................... 81

10 Insights into the Laboratory Lessons ............................................... 83 10.1 Overview of the Tasks ............................................................. 83 10.2 Four Phases ............................................................................ 85 10.2.1 Phase 1: Introduction ......................................................... 86 10.2.2 Phase 2: Further Opening.................................................. 86 10.2.3 Phase 3: Application .......................................................... 87 10.2.4 Phase 4: Asking Questions ................................................ 87 10.2.5 The Stepwise Introduction ................................................. 88 11 The Scaffolding by the Teacher ....................................................... 88 11.1 Scaffolding of Language.......................................................... 89 11.1.1 Language Aids in the Task Sheets .................................... 90 11.1.2 Language Aids during the Inquiry Process......................... 92 11.1.3 Language Aids for Writing a Lab Report ............................ 93 11.2 Scaffolding of “Doing Inquiry” .................................................. 97 11.2.1 Level 0 ............................................................................... 97 11.2.2 Level 1 ............................................................................... 98 11.2.3 Level 2 ............................................................................. 100 11.3 Scaffolding of “Learning about Inquiry” .................................. 102 11.4 Role of Content ..................................................................... 103 11.5 Conclusion ............................................................................ 108 12 The Questionnaire “Views of Scientific Inquiry”.............................. 109 13 Focus on Individual Persons .......................................................... 116 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4

Dana ..................................................................................... 116 Lija ........................................................................................ 119 Melina ................................................................................... 121 Dimitrij ................................................................................... 123

14 Discussion ..................................................................................... 126 14.1 Successive Implementation of Inquiry-based Learning .......... 126 14.2 The Scaffolding ..................................................................... 127 14.2.1 Taking the Diversity into Account ..................................... 127 14.2.2 Scaffolding while “Doing Inquiry-based Learning” ............ 129 14.2.3 Difficulties of Scaffolding when “Learning About Inquiry” . 129 14.2.4 Conclusions about the Scaffolding by the Teacher .......... 130 14.3 Students’ Views of Scientific Inquiry ...................................... 131 14.4 Discussion of the Methods .................................................... 133 14.4.1 Data Collection ................................................................ 133 14.4.2 Intelligence Test .............................................................. 133 14.4.3 Questionnaire “Views of Scientific Inquiry” ....................... 134 14.4.4 PISA Questionnaire ......................................................... 134

14.4.5 Suitable Methods for Diverse Classrooms ....................... 135 14.5 Conclusion and Outlook ........................................................ 135 References.......................................................................................... 138 Abstract ............................................................................................... 154 Zusammenfassung.............................................................................. 155 List of Figures and Tables ................................................................... 156 Appendix ............................................................................................. 159 Appendix 1: Coding Manual – Scaffolding ........................................ 159 Appendix 2: Coding Manual – “Views of Scientific Inquiry” ............... 167

1 Introduction Throughout the course of the last 30 years, inquiry-based learning has been a very prominent topic in the field of science education all over the world. There are a huge number of papers, books and (political) documents published about the advantages, pitfalls, opportunities, and different interpretations of inquirybased learning. Overall, studies show a positive tendency in favor of inquirybased learning when implemented under certain circumstances, e.g. when there are adequate support measures available. However, most of these studies center on a specific intervention with limited duration under specific conditions. In Austria there are two policy documents concerning the requirements of chemistry education at the secondary level: the Austrian science education standards for different grades and school types (e.g. bifie, 2011), and the curricula. These documents include activities such as asking questions, planning and conducting investigations, and drawing conclusions. In addition to fulfilling the requirements, chemistry education in school should embrace inquiry-based learning as one way to teach. Both empirical research as well as policy documents demand for a realization of inquiry-based learning in chemistry education. Nevertheless, inquiry-based learning has not already found its way into Austrian classrooms. In 2013, in the course of a preliminary study for the EU-funded project TEMI (Teaching Enquiry with Mysteries Incorporated), Austrian teachers were asked via a questionnaire whether or not they were aware of inquiry-based science education as an approach and if so, whether or not they had applied it at least once (Hofer, Lembens, & Abels, 2016). Nearly 50% (N=247) stated that they were familiar with inquiry-based science education as an approach and only half of this group had applied this approach on at least one occasion. Roughly only one quarter of the Austrian teachers said they had ever tried to implement inquiry-based learning. Two aspects came to light as a result of this questionnaire: many teachers are unfamiliar with the concept of inquiry-based learning and those who are familiar with it refrain from implementing it. During informal talks with teachers during or after professional development courses about inquiry-based learning, questions often arise like: “How can I implement inquiry-based learning in my school?” or “How can I deal with questions and problems in my class during inquiry tasks?” These statements are not unique in Austria but also prevalent in various papers. The “transfer of theory to practice is meager or even non-existent” (Korthagen & Kessels, 1999, p. 2). And this is the crux of the matter.

7

In some books, vignettes are included which give a glimpse into lessons but there is a lack of a holistic impression. There are only few long-term studies investigating inquiry-based learning and most of them do not include portrayals of the setup. Tobin and Gallagher wrote in their research about the implementation of a curriculum into authentic classrooms that, “Researchers need to study classrooms, construct a picture of classroom life and communicate their findings to those with an interest in curriculum design and implementation” (Tobin & Gallagher, 1987, p. 549). I was keenly interested in constructing such a picture both as a researcher as well as a chemistry teacher. Another relevant issue in education is the increasing diversity in the classroom. First of all, Austria has signed the “UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 1” which means that Austria is committed to implementing inclusive education. In the course of its realization, schools for special needs students are going to be closed. Moreover, globalization and migration, especially the most recent rush of refugees, raised the urgency of methods to handle the diversity in the classroom to a new level. Ethnicity is not the only dimension of diversity present in the classroom. Inclusive chemistry education means providing even more, it means providing suitable learning opportunities for all students “[…] regardless of age, sex, cultural or ethnic background, disabilities, aspirations, or interest and motivation in science, should have the opportunity to attain high levels of scientific literacy” (National Research Council, 1996, p. 20). Dealing with the many facets of diversity provides a challenge for teachers. They often state: “Of course inquiry-based learning would be an interesting approach but it is not possible to implement it in my highly diverse classroom.” Comments, doubts, and insecurities of the teachers show the need for more insight which requires data from a highly diverse setting. In order to combine both ideas, the long-term investigation and the highly diverse setting, I decided to accompany one chemistry teacher in a classroom with high diversity throughout the course of one year. I chose one class in an urban business school with 31 ninth graders to conduct an explorative singlecase study. In this classroom, the implementation of inquiry-based learning as general approach was investigated in order to answer my research questions: Is it possible to implement inquiry-based learning in a “normal” diverse class (e.g. in a typical class in today’s schools) and if yes, what does it look like? What can the teacher do to support the students and does the teacher provide appropriate support for all? And what do the students think about the nature of scientific 1

https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-withdisabilities.html (Retrieved 2017-04-28) 8

inquiry at the end of the school year in comparison to the beginning of the school year? I established this thesis from the perspective of school life and educational research. But learning is not just for school, but for life. So what skills and competences are required for a life after school? These questions are discussed in the first chapter of this thesis. After describing the rationale of my thesis, inquiry-based learning is elaborated upon and the concept of diversity and its dimensions is described. Then the two concepts are synthesized. To support the implementation of inquiry-based learning in diverse classrooms, scaffolding is important and is subsequently discussed. The next part describes the school where the research took place and introduces the research questions followed by the methods used for collecting and analyzing data. Afterwards, background information about the particular school class regarding diversity, a characterization of this class, and results from the questionnaires used are presented. The goal was to describe the students on an individual level as well as a class level. Then, the lessons taught in this class and the phases of implementation are explicated followed by a detailed description of the scaffolding the teacher provides. The next part of the empirical section is dedicated to the results of the questionnaire “Views of scientific inquiry”. To conclude this section and to combine all the data four persons are highlighted and are described in detail. Following this, the results are discussed with regard to the research questions. The methods used and the underlying principles of the research are subsequently discussed. The Conclusion and Outlook sum up the thesis. The next chapter is dedicated to answering the following question: What should schooling achieve? The requirements for a reflective citizen are explicated.

9

2 Requirements for a Reflective Citizen In many European and other well-developed countries, the chemical industries are often offering more jobs than there are candidates available. The industrialists’ association in Austria sees the difficulty of recruiting wellqualified employees as an obstacle for science and innovation (Industriellenvereinigung, 2013). They published in their MINT 2020 2 report that currently “every fifth to sixth newly created job within the disciplines mathematics, sciences, technology, and computer sciences remains vacant” [translated by the author] (ibid., p. 8). So the industry is asking schools to foster and motivate young people to pursue a career in chemistry. But the learning of a certain science is not only important for pursuing a job in the respective field. Science education can contribute to a wide range of employment, because “[m]ore and more jobs demand advanced skills, requiring that people be able to learn, reason, think creatively, make decisions, and solve problems. An understanding of science and the processes of science contributes in an essential way to these skills” (National Research Council, 1996, p. 1). The ROSE 3 (Relevance of Science Education) study showed that currently science does not open the eyes of the students for new and exciting jobs and it also lacks in showing the importance of science for our way of life (Sjøberg & Schreiner, 2010). Even though the students admit that “science and technology does make our lives healthier, easier and more comfortable” jobs in that field do not seem to be attractive enough (ibid., p. 8). As a consequence very few students in western countries want to become scientists or get a job in technology. Furthermore many students in Europe and other well-developed countries have low interest in the topics found in the science curricula (Sjøberg & Schreiner, 2010). Implications drawn from the ROSE-project (Sjøberg & Schreiner, 2010) suggest two important things among others. First, the students’ interest should be considered, e.g. in teaching material and classroom activities. And secondly, “the teaching has […] to be motivating, meaningful and engaging” (Sjøberg & Schreiner, 2010, p. 29). The MINT 2020 vision also emphasizes that the education of tomorrow should be activity-oriented, application-oriented, meaningful, and prefers inquiry-based learning (F. H. Müller, Krainer, & Haidinger, 2013). 2

MINT 2020 is a project by the industrialists’ association in Austria in cooperation with the Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt (Carinthia, Austria) dedicated to offering a framework for modern education. 3 ROSE is an international research project on the Relevance of Science Education http://roseproject.no/ 10

Another important issue alongside the concern to raise interest to increase a scientific workforce and even more important is that, especially in these rapidly changing times, a basic scientific knowledge is absolutely essential (e.g. to orientate oneself with the myriad of information available on the internet). In the “Beyond 2000” report Millar and Osborne wrote: “The ever-growing importance of scientific issues in our daily lives demands a populace who have sufficient knowledge and understanding to follow science and scientific debates with interest” (Millar & Osborne, 1998, p. 4). It has to be ensured that all students become scientifically literate so that they can participate actively within a modern world (National Research Council, 1996). The National Research Council describes this active participation in the following way: “Everyone needs to use scientific information to make choices that arise every day. Everyone needs to be able to engage intelligently in public discourse and debate about important issues that involve science and technology. And everyone deserves to share in the excitement and personal fulfillment that can come from understanding and learning about the natural world” (National Research Council, 1996, p. 1).

In the Austrian education report, Krainer and Benke (2009) state that the natural sciences offer a creative potential which should be utilized within a democratic society and that education has the obligation to ensure a questioning of information and knowledge (Krainer & Benke, 2009). Lembens and Rehm (2010) also write about an obligation in addition to the right to be informed (Lembens & Rehm, 2010, p. 283). The prerequisite of being informed is to become scientifically literate. This includes a basal understanding about the validity and significance of data and facts when dealing with information about current problems reported by media. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) was one of the first institutions that mentioned the importance of scientific literacy in a curriculum. The AAAS collected recommendations for each grade based on the goals laid out in the project 2061 report from 1989 “Science for All Americans”. In those benchmarks (AAAS, 2009), first written in 1993 and updated in 2009, three considerations are mentioned: • “When people know how scientists go about their work and reach scientific conclusions, and what the limitations of such conclusions are, they are more likely to react thoughtfully to scientific claims and less likely to reject them out of hand or accept them uncritically. • Once people gain a good sense of how science operates – along with a basic inventory of key science concepts as a basis for learning more later – they can follow the science adventure story as it plays out during their lifetimes. 11

• The images that many people have of science and how it works are often distorted. The myths and stereotypes that young people have about science are not dispelled when science teaching focuses narrowly on the laws, concepts, and theories of science. Hence, the study of science as a way of knowing needs to be made explicit in the curriculum” (AAAS, 2009, no page). A definition quite similar to the previous interpretations was published within the OECD program for international students assessment (PISA) framework for 2000 (OECD, 2000). There scientific literacy is defined as “the capacity to use scientific knowledge, to identify questions and to draw evidence-based conclusions in order to understand and help make decisions about the natural world and the changes made to it through human activity” (OECD, 2000, p. 76). In the OECD’s PISA Framework 2006 the term “scientific literacy” is defined in greater detail: “For the purposes of PISA 2006, scientific literacy refers to an individual’s • Scientific knowledge and use of that knowledge to identify questions, acquire new knowledge, explain scientific phenomena and draw evidencebased conclusions about science-related issues • Understanding of the characteristic features of science as a form of human knowledge and enquiry • Awareness of how science and technology shape our material, intellectual and cultural environments • Willingness to engage in science-related issues and with the ideas of science, as a reflective citizen“ (OECD, 2006, p. 23). According to Bybee (1995), scientific literacy includes the following aspects later extended by the first dimension. These dimensions build a continuum of increasing literacy: • Nominal literacy where names are associated with scientific or technological areas but there are no adequate definitions available. This includes e.g. naïve theories and inaccurate concepts (Roberts, 2007). • Functional scientific literacy which includes using the terminology “appropriately and adequately” (Bybee, 1995, p. 29), • Conceptual and procedural scientific literacy which refers to the relation between experiences to concepts and also includes “abilities and understandings relative to the procedures and processes that make science a unique way of knowing” (Bybee, 1995, p. 29), and

12

• Multidimensional scientific literacy which encompasses the importance of science and technology for society, the nature of science, and the history of scientific ideas. Bybee’s framework for scientific literacy differs from the afore mentioned definition as it presents levels for improvement rather than different features a scientific literate citizen should possess. But Bybee states that “no one could possibly achieve full scientific and technological literacy” (Bybee, 1997, p. 85) In order to achieve the goal of students becoming scientifically literate, suitable methods are required in schools. Inquiry-based science education can contribute to that goal as it focuses on questions as a starting point for inquiry and on working scientifically, including activities like choosing adequate methods, drawing conclusions, and reasoning the results which are part of the concept of scientific literacy (see above) (Dumont, Istance, & Benavides, 2010). Additionally, the European Commission is promoting inquiry-based science education (IBSE) as one possibility to activate and maintain students’ interest (Rocard et al., 2007). The European Commission states – based on empirical studies – that inquiry-based science education has the potential to raise students’ interest and attainment levels and also stresses that inquiry-based learning promotes high achievers as IBSE is “fully compatible with the ambition of excellence” (Rocard et al., 2007, p. 2) and also has a strong impact on students who do not respond well to traditional deductive methods. Traditional approaches are characterized as “whole-class instructional techniques (lectures, class reading, completing worksheets), in which students are passive learners” (Hewson, Kahle, Scantlebury, & Davies, 2001, p. 1131). So, inquiry-based learning seems to be a promising method to welcome diversity and to facilitate scientific knowledge. In the following chapter the terms inquiry and inquiry-based learning will be further introduced and clarified.

13

3 Inquiry-based Learning The term “inquiry” sometimes causes confusion as it describes a way of teaching as well as doing science (Colburn, 2000). This is addressed in the National Science Education Standards where inquiry is defined from two perspectives: “Scientific inquiry refers to the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work. Inquiry also refers to the activities of students in which they develop knowledge and understanding of scientific ideas, as well as an understanding of how scientists study the natural world.” (National Research Council, 1996, p. 23)

The first part refers to the actual work of scientists. The second part of the definition refers to inquiry-based learning as an activity in education where scientific content can be learned, and an understanding about the methods of scientists can be developed. For instance, the students can learn about the possibility of several approaches to an investigation, or how scientific knowledge derives from evidence. So in school, inquiry can be taught as “inquiry as means” with inquiry-based learning as an instructional approach to learning science content and “inquiry as ends” regarding developing skills and gaining epistemological understanding about the nature of science (see chapter 3.4) (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 2004, p. 398). Abrams, Southerland and Evans (2008) name three teaching goals of inquirybased learning: “learning about inquiry”, “using inquiry to learn science content”, and “learning to inquire”. The goal “learning to inquire” (cp. ‘developing skills’) and “learning about inquiry” can be compared to Abd-ElKhalick et al.’s “inquiry as ends”. The second goal “using inquiry to learn science content” would match “inquiry as means”. The goal “learning about inquiry” is formulated in the school curriculum of the U.S. An example for a benchmark of the AAAS (2009) which should be reached by the end of grade twelve would be: “in science, the testing, revising, and occasional discarding of theories, new and old, never ends. This ongoing process leads to a better understanding of how things work in the world but not to absolute truth” (AAAS, 2009, n. p.). The second goal, to “use inquiry to learn science content”, means to allow a construction of content knowledge (Abrams et al., 2008). It is suggested that the active participation in the construction of explanations will end with more meaningful knowledge (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999). As in accordance

14

to the concept of scientific literacy, the focus lies on the application of knowledge and not on memorizing and reproduction. “Learning to inquire”, which is the third goal Abrams et al. (2008) mentioned, involves the active participation in an inquiry process. All these goals (“learning to inquire”, “learning about inquiry” and “use inquiry to learn science content”) by Abrams (2008) are combined in the concept of scientific literacy described in chapter 2. Inquiry-based learning offers opportunities to learn how science works, how knowledge is constructed and how to become scientifically literate (Hackling, Smith, & Murcia, 2010). During an inquiry, multiple occasions for discourse can occur, e.g. which method should be used to investigate a specific research question, how to interpret data and draw conclusions from data using logical thinking. All these occasions present opportunities to have group discussions to weigh the pros and cons. To rationalize the decisions made during inquiry processes in school can eventually help people to reconstruct the decisions in public debate and discourse. Figure 1 shows the elements of an inquiry, visualized as a process in an idealized inquiry cycle. Inquiry is a versatile process which includes asking questions, using previously gathered knowledge, planning and conducting an investigation, making observations, describing and gathering data, subsequently analyzing it with various methods, interpreting data, drawing conclusions, presenting the results and justifying them (National Research Council, 2000). Often new questions and the wish or the demand for alternative methods arise, and the process can start again.

Figure 1: Idealized inquiry cycle (translated by the author) (Abels, Puddu, & Lembens, 2014, p. 40) 15

This inquiry cycle, as well as the description of the inquiry process, is idealized and simplified. In the realization of a scientific inquiry, the steps are in no specific order and not all steps are present every time and there are steps or tasks you do not find in this description as well. Nevertheless, it gives an impression what can be done in a classroom. In order to support inquiry-based learning in the classroom in a way that every student can successfully participate, an appropriate learning environment is necessary. A learning environment consists of methods, teaching techniques, materials and media (Reinmann & Mandl, 2006). An inquiry supporting learning environment is a student-centered environment (Bransford et al., 1999) where the students’ previous knowledge, previous experience, attitudes, and interests are central. In the following chapter, deduced from the steps of inquiry (Figure 1), I will go more into detail about the necessary abilities to do inquiry which should be furthered in school. 3.1

The Abilities to do Inquiry

There are several abilities which are necessary to do inquiry (National Research Council, 2000). The higher the grade, the more elaborate they should be. The National Research Council (2000) listed abilities according to grade (K-12). Those which should be developed during grades K-4 are: Asking a question regarding the students’ surroundings and experiences, planning and conducting of simple investigations, using simple tools to gather data, constructing a reasonable explanation from the data, and communicating the investigations and explanations. These abilities match the steps of the idealized inquiry cycle, visualized in Figure 1, and have to be nurtured slowly. At higher grades there is a further development towards a scientific investigation, the use of elaborated tools, the consideration of alternative explanations and the integration of technical and mathematical aspects such as ways of processing data or making charts and graphs which also make it possible to present results more clearly. The National Research Council more or less removed the term inquiry from the new U.S. national standards due to manifold interpretations of the term inquiry (National Research Council, 2012; NGSS Lead States, 2013). The National Research Council introduced “practices” which mirror the abilities necessary to do inquiry and should be reached by grade 12. The named practices are: “1. Asking questions (for science) and defining problems (for engineering) 2. Developing and using models 16

3. Planning and carrying out investigations 4. Analyzing and interpreting data 5. Using mathematics and computational thinking 6. Constructing explanations (for science) and designing solutions (for engineering) 7. Engaging in argument from evidence 8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information” (National Research Council, 2012, p. 42). In the new standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013) it is demanded to put stronger emphasis on argumentation and the practices should be carried out individually at first. It is assumed that that approach should help students to master the requirements and lead to more implementation of practice in the classroom. Because “[o]bservations from science education researchers have indicated that these two dimensions [core ideas and practices; authors’ note] are, at best, taught separately or that the practices are not taught at all” (NGSS Lead States, 2013p. xiv). I still stick to the term inquiry for an easier discussion about a continuous process. Also, the European Commission still recommends an inquiry approach (European Commission, 2015). In Austria, science standards were developed for grade eight, for high school (grades nine to twelve) and for vocational schools with higher education entrance qualification (grades nine to thirteen). All three science standards have a similar structure. As my research takes place in a higher commercial school (Business school) I would like to mention only the Austrian Science Standards for colleges for higher vocational education. Those schools are described as “higher technical and vocational schools [which] impart higher vocational training as well as a broad general education, and conclude with a matriculation [higher education entrance qualification; author’s note] and diploma examination after five years” by the federal ministry of education (Bundesministerium für Bildung) (bmb, 2016, p. 22). The standards were published by the former ministry for education, art, and culture (Bundesministerium für Unterricht, Kunst und Kultur) (bmukk, 2009). The science standards for vocational schools show the requirements for the grades nine to thirteen. It is a three-dimensional model of content, competency, and level of requirement.

17

Figure 2: Three dimensional model of the Austrian Science Standards for vocational schools with higher education entrance qualification [translated by the author] (bmukk, 2009, p. 7)

The dimension “content” is divided into four domains. The first domain “substances, particles and structures” encompasses atoms, atomic models, molecules, formulas, nomenclature, separating processes, and safety measures among others (bmukk, 2009, p. 11). The domain “interactions” includes chemical bonds and chemical reactions. The third domain is called “developments and processes”. This domain covers a large field of industrial processes and products like petro chemistry, synthetics, fertilizer, food technology and the topic chemistry and society which includes the history of chemistry, the path from a phenomenon to a model and recent research areas (ibid.). The fourth domain “systems” covers the periodic table of elements, and the principles of ecology like air, water, soil, and cycle of materials. Every time I refer to content during my analysis it will be part of these four domains. The dimension ‘competency’ (A to C, see Figure 2) is divided into three domains, • observe and understand • investigate and process • evaluate and apply

18

The domain “observe and understand” is described as follows: “[This domain] includes the competencies to observe processes and manifestations in nature, to describe something by a formula and symbols where applicable, and to express that in an appropriate terminology; the classifying, representing and explaining of phenomena by means of basic concepts, facts and principles are part of it” (bmukk, 2009, p. 8) [translated by the author]. The domain ‘evaluate and apply’ includes the “competencies to evaluate, to document, to present, and to apply data, facts and results regarding their information and consequences. These competencies include the reasoned selection of assessment criteria and the cognition of the limits of validity and the range of application of scientific evidence and prognosis” [translated by the author] (bmukk, 2009, p. 8). There are descriptors given for each competency. They are phrased out of the students’ perspective like: “I can observe processes and manifestations in nature and understand scientific relations” [translated by the author] (bmukk, 2009, p. 16). The students have to develop skills like asking questions, planning scientific inquiries, analyzing and interpreting data etc. to meet these standards. The competencies as written in the Austrian science standards for vocational schools are explicitly related to the procedures used during an inquiry. “By clustering the competencies [see Figure 2; competencies A to C] characteristic ranges of action are specified which signal a logical order” [translated by the author] (bmukk, 2009, p. 7). That means that after the investigation (“investigate and process”) the evaluation (“evaluate and apply”) can follow. The third dimension of the model, the “level of requirement”, includes two levels. Level 1 encompasses the abilities and methods to reproduce simple experiments and procedures, gather information and describe basic contexts. Level 2 is significantly more demanding. It includes the planning and conducting of experiments, analyzing the data, reflecting and assessing of conclusions and working interdisciplinarily as well as transferring the knowledge to new scientific issues. The goals of inquiry “learning to inquire” and “using inquiry to learn science content” by Abrams et al. (2008) are reflected in the science standards for vocational schools via the area generated of the two dimensions “competency” and “content”. The goal “learning about inquiry” is not as apparent as the other two. In the introduction of the standards, the developer group of the standards states that it is important for the students to understand and to be able to engage in scientific public discourse. They also mention goals for students like discussing scientific methods of knowledge acquisition and their limitations to 19

becoming scientifically literate (bmukk, 2009). Only in the domain “evaluate and apply” knowledge about inquiry is mentioned explicitly like “limits of validity” and “range of application of scientific evidence and prognosis” (bmukk, 2009, p. 17). This is clearly a point where the standards are missing out on this very important goal. It is important to mention that the Austrian science standards for vocational schools with higher education entrance qualification are not binding. They give an orientation to teachers which outcome they should reach with their students with regard to the exams for the higher education entrance certification. The standards have an impact on the curriculum, school books, and graduation exams but they are not enforced by the governmental department. This is reflected in the current curriculum for business schools, which contains, contrary to the 2004 version, the aim to “[qualify students] to detect scientific questions, to plan and conduct simple scientific investigations, and to document and present the results [translated by the author]”(bmb, 2014, p. 92). 3.2

Effectiveness of Inquiry-based Learning

Large parts of the discussion about implementing inquiry-based learning are politically motivated und initiated. All parties involved aim to improve students learning, to foster scientific literacy with the ultimate goal of educating reflective citizens. This chapter is dedicated to the empirical research about the effectiveness of inquiry-based learning. Minner, Levy, and Century (2010) conducted an ‘Inquiry Synthesis Project’ where they analyzed 138 papers from 1984 to 2002. They took quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies into account which were conducted not only by researchers but also by teachers. Their research question concerned student conceptual learning and retention. Out of the 138 studies involved in this synthesis 51% showed a positive impact, 33% showed a mixed impact, 14% showed no impact, and 2% showed a negative impact (Minner et al., 2010). Minner et al. (2010) also took a closer look at six comparative studies which included hands-on activities. They found significant improvement in conceptual learning of the students in five of the six studies compared to treatments without hands-on activities (ibid.). While the Inquiry Synthesis Project concentrated only on conceptual learning the study by Wilson et al. (Wilson, Taylor, Kowalski, & Carlson, 2010) focused on knowledge, reasoning and argumentation. They found that students who received inquiry-based instruction performed significantly better than students 20

who received commonplace instruction concerning knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation (Wilson et al., 2010). A meta-analysis of 37 studies from different countries like e.g. United States, Turkey, Taiwan, and Germany by Furtak, Seidel, Iverson, and Briggs (2012) also “indicate[d] a positive effect of inquiry-based teaching reforms on student learning of science” (Furtak et al., 2012, p. 322). Furthermore, they stressed the importance of scaffolding during the student activities (ibid.). So, inquiry-based learning is part of the standards, enacted by the ministry and should be present in every (chemistry) class. Furthermore, various studies, metaanalyses and other research recommend the implementation of inquiry-based learning (cp. Blanchard et al., 2010; Furtak et al., 2012; Lynch, Kuipers, Pyke, & Szesze, 2005; Minner et al., 2010; Wilson et al., 2010). But, as mentioned before, inquiry-based learning requires a lot of different abilities of the students. Hence, all the abilities to do inquiry-based learning should be initiated and acquired slowly. It is recommended by Lederman (2008) that the teacher undertakes more parts in an inquiry process at the beginning until the students can handle them by themselves. In the following chapter, different classifications of inquiry levels are introduced. This can help to implement inquiry-based learning successively and to discuss the responsibilities for parts during the inquiry process. 3.3

Levels of Inquiry

A classification into different levels is useful in facilitating communication between students, teachers, and educators as well as implementing inquiry-based learning successively and successfully in the classroom. Several attempts have been made to classify the inquiry process. In the following section I portray the historical evolution of the most popular classification but I also show other attempts with the strengths and weaknesses I perceived. Table 1 shows the most common classification by Blanchard et al. (2010). Source of the Question

Data Collection Methods

Interpretation of Results

Level 0: Verification

Given by teacher

Given by teacher

Given by teacher

Level 1: Structured

Given by teacher

Given by teacher

Open to student

Level 2: Guided

Given by teacher

Open to student

Open to student

Level 3: Open

Open to student

Open to student

Open to student

Table 1: The levels of inquiry (Blanchard et al., 2010, p. 581) 21

This classification has evolved from the first classification with three levels of openness (see level 1 to 3 in Table 1) which was done by Schwab (1962). Based on the many activities which occur in an inquiry process (see chapter 3 and 3.1) Schwab decided to divide the whole inquiry process into three main parts, the posed problem (which corresponds with the source of the question in Blanchard et al.’s model), the methods used (corresponding with the data collection methods), and the answers to the problem (interpretation of the results). At level 1 the teacher poses the problem and determines the method the students have to use. The students have to conduct the investigation, gather results and interpret them. At level 2 the teacher still poses the problem, but now the methods and the answers are open to the students and at level three the students are “confronted with the raw phenomenon” and must pose the problem themselves (Schwab, 1962, p. 55). The higher the level of inquiry is, the more responsibility is given to the students. Level 0 which covers “laboratory exercises in which students are simply to observe or ‘experience’ some unfamiliar phenomenon to learn to master some particular laboratory technique” was established by Herron (1971, p. 200). Colburn (2000) described structured, guided and open inquiry. These descriptions can be linked to Schwab’s (1962) levels, level 1 as structured inquiry, level 2 as guided inquiry and level 3 as open inquiry. He additionally introduced a learning cycle which starts with a guided inquiry. After finishing that process the insights of the inquiry process should be applied to a new inquiry but Colburn did not mention the level of the subsequent inquiry process (Colburn, 2000). Similar to the learning cycle is the so-called coupled inquiry (Martin-Hansen, 2002). There, a guided inquiry task is followed by an open inquiry task. A structured inquiry followed by a guided inquiry would also be possible. A few years later, level 0 is described as verification inquiry (N. G. Lederman, 2008). A more detailed classification is offered by Bonnstetter (1998). He expanded the classification shown in Table 1 and categorized the inquiry process into six parts: the topic, the question, the necessary materials, the chosen procedures or the design, the gathered results and their analysis, and the conclusion. To show the connections, an assemblage of the short three-part inquiry process of Table 1 and the more detailed description of Bonnstetter’s levels is shown in Table 2. In the “traditional hands-on” inquiry the teacher is responsible for the whole inquiry process which matches level 1 by Blanchard et al. Structured inquiry is equivalent in both, Bonnstetter’s and Blanchard et al.’s classifications, meaning the teacher is responsible for the topic, the question, the materials, and also for the procedures. The student is responsible for the results, the analysis, and the 22

conclusion. Also, the guided inquiry is equivalent in both classifications. The teacher is responsible for the topic, the question and for the materials necessary for the inquiry. The student assumes responsibility for the research design, the results and their analysis, and the conclusion. The most obvious difference to the levels by Blanchard et al. (see Table 1) is the division into four levels. In Bonnstetter’s classification, level 3 “open inquiry” is divided into “student directed” inquiry where the topic is given by the teacher and “student research” where the topic can be open to the students as well. Another difference is that in some table cells both teacher and student are listed (Table 2). There the responsibility for that part fluctuates between teachers and students. Levels of Inquiry according to Bonnstetter (1998)

Traditional Hands-on

Structured

Guided

Student

Student

Directed

Research

Topic

Teacher

Teacher

Teacher

Teacher

Teacher/Student

Question

Teacher

Teacher

Teacher

Teacher/Student

Student

Materials

Teacher

Teacher

Teacher

Student

Student

Procedures/Design

Teacher

Teacher

Teacher/Student

Student

Student

Results/Analysis

Teacher

Teacher/Student

Student

Student

Student

Conclusion

Teacher

Student

Student

Student

Student

0

1

2

3

Verification

Structured

Guided

Open

Level of Inquiry according to Abrams et al. (2008)

Table 2: Assemblage of Abrams’ (2008) and Bonnstetter’s (1998) levels of inquiry published in Puddu, Keller & Lembens (2012, p. 150)

Specific for Bonnstetter’s classification is that it mentions “material” as an important part of the implementation process. Up to this point, the levels show how an inquiry can be structured in theory. This classification shows a way of implementing inquiry in practice. The more detailed classification reflects the manifold ways to inquire better than the concise version of Blanchard et al. (2010). The provision of material is a subtle way to guide the inquiry process, but time-consuming to arrange. To hand over the responsibility for the materials to the students provides a freedom to think in ways the teacher might not think. For the set-up of the materials there are two possible ways: either the students make a list of materials needed for their investigation and the teacher provides them or the complete responsibility for the materials is left to the students, 23

which means that the students have to organize all needed materials by themselves. Of course the considerations about which materials and how they should be provided happens in every planning of a lesson but to integrate it explicitly in the planning of an inquiry raises awareness of the function the materials can have. However, I had the experience that the classification is too extensive and often confuses teachers. A quite similar classification into levels is provided by Buck, Bretz, and Towns (2008). While the first classifications were made out of a normative assessment or, in Bonnstetter’s case, developed in cooperation with teachers to “help teachers see the connection to their present practice and [… to] establish personal goals to move our nations science teachers on” (Bonnstetter, 1998, no page), the classification of Buck et al. (2008) was developed empirically. They analyzed 386 undergraduate science laboratory experiments and activities with this classification (Figure 3). They divided the inquiry process into six parts: problem/question, theory/background, procedures/design, results analysis, results communication, and conclusion. The so-called rubric (see Figure 3) contains five levels.

Figure 3: Levels of inquiry (Buck et al., 2008, p. 54)

Even though the rubric of Buck et al. (2008) refers to the same origins as the levels of inquiry by Blanchard et al. (2010), neither the numbers of the levels nor the labels of the levels are the same. I would like to highlight two main differences. In Buck’s open inquiry the question is provided, whereas it is open to the students in the classification of Blanchard et al. The second main difference is the naming of a level 3 inquiry as an authentic inquiry. An authentic scientific inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002) has a very complex nature, e.g. manifold variables, the effort and diverse ways of gathering and handling data. Level 3 inquiries can show core attributes of authentic inquiries, 24

but the authenticity is not guaranteed. Moreover, the implication that other levels do not show core attributes of authenticity is also not true. For example, discussions about appropriate methods and their flaws are possible in a level 2 task about the method the students had chosen themselves as well as in a level 1 task where the method chosen by the teacher is discussed. So, in my opinion, the naming of the level 3 as ‘authentic inquiry’ is inaccurate. Another empirically developed discrete classification was published by Germann, Haskins and Auls (1996) (Figure 4). In their study, they analyzed laboratory manuals published for high school general biology courses. The categorization they did is based on Schwab (1962) and Herron (1971), but the main categories “problems”, “methods”, and “solutions” are split into subcategories. The category “problems” is divided into “problems” (includes inquiry questions and hypotheses) and “variables”. The category “solutions” is divided into “performance” (includes e.g. observe, measure, records), “solution” (e.g. transform data, conclude, infer and explain), and “extensions” (e.g. hypothesize, predict, explain and apply). Unique in this scheme is that providing background information like knowledge, techniques, and experience is considered as important for the success of the inquiry process and added as a third dimension (Germann et al., 1996). “If students lack, or are unaware that they possess, appropriate background information, it is likely that many students would complete laboratory exercises without understanding what they were doing, why they were doing it, or what conclusions or meaning they should draw from it” (Germann et al., 1996, p. 481). Unfortunately, it is the only model which contains the background category explicitly.

Figure 4: Framework for inquiry by Germann et al. (1996, p. 481)

25

The models of Germann et al. (1996) and Buck et al. (2008) are empirically developed and very detailed. As such they are suitable to analyze tasks, but I think they are not suited to be used by teachers as they are very extensive and not as quick to grasp as the model by Blanchard et al. (2010). In opposition to the discrete description of the levels, the National Research Council (2000) introduced a continuous scale. The NRC (2000) presented five essential features to distinguish different types of inquiry according to their grade of open-endedness, shown in Table 3. In this scale, the amount of “SelfDirection” varies from more to less and the amount of “Direction from Teacher or Material” varies parallel from less to more. This continuous description of possible variations of inquiry demonstrates the rich variety of classroom inquiry. The expected outcome, respectively, the goal which is visible in the essential features with its possible variations should influence the grade of openendedness of the inquiry (National Research Council, 2000). Essential Feature

Variations

1. Learner engages in scientifically oriented questions

Learner poses a question

Learner selects among questions, poses new questions

Learner sharpens or clarifies question provided by teacher, materials or other source

Learner engages in question provided by teacher, materials, or other source

2. Learner gives priority to evidence in responding to questions

Learner determines what constitutes evidence and collects it

Learner directed to collect certain data

Learner given data and asked to analyze

Learner given data and told how to analyze

3. Learner formulate explanations from evidence

Learner formulates explanation after summarizing evidence

Learner guided in process of formulating explanations from evidence

Learner given possible ways to use evidence to formulate explanation

Learner provided with evidence

4. Learner connects explanations to scientific knowledge

Learner independently examines other resources and forms the links to explanations

Learner directed toward areas and sources of scientific knowledge

Learner given possible connections

5. Learner communicates and justifies explanations

Learner forms reasonable and logical argument to communicate explanations

Learner coached in development of communication

Learner provided broad guidelines to use sharpen communication

Learner given steps and procedures for communication

More-------------------------Amount of Learner Self-Direction----------------------------Less Less------------------Amount of Direction from Teacher or Material---------------------More

Table 3: Essential Features of Classroom Inquiry and its Variations (National Research Council, 2000, p. 29) 26

The NRC prefers the continuous model instead of a discrete level-based one and states that “inquiry-based learning cannot simply be characterized as one or the other” (National Research Council, 2000, p. 30). I agree insofar that categorization is often difficult and the continuous model of the NRC shows the variety and embraces the continuum of possibilities within the classroom perfectly. But it triggers confusion when teachers want to assess the openness of the tasks they create for their students and think about the further development of the students. Of course, at the discrete models (cp. Blanchard et al., 2010; Buck et al., 2008; Germann et al., 1996), the transition between the levels has to be considered which is obvious in the continuous model. Whichever model you use, the employed inquiry level has to suit the students’ inquiry skills as well as their prior knowledge (Abrams, 2008; Germann et al., 1996) to avoid overextension of the students. It cannot be expected that students are able to immediately succeed in a level 3 task. As a consequence, inquirybased learning “should gradually and systematically move from Level ‘0’ activities with the ultimate goal being some Level ‘3’ activities” (N. G. Lederman, 2008, p. 32). This progress will be explained and discussed in detail below as this is the way inquiry-based learning is introduced to the class in my empirical research. Each presented model has its strengths. During my research I used the uncomplicated classification (Table 1) published by Blanchard et al. (2010) because it shows in short and easy terms how you can introduce inquiry successively. In my experience, the simplicity and brevity make it easier for teachers to adopt the levels. Depending on their experience and their abilities, the students can assume more and more responsibility for their inquiry and carry out tasks on a higher inquiry level. With each level a deepening and increasing of the skills can be aimed for. The process of inquiry is multilayered and different competencies are necessary to accomplish a task. The knowledge about a topic is detached from the inquiry level as the cognitive demands of a task can be as high in a level 0 inquiry task as in a level 3 inquiry task. By increasing the openness successively, the teacher has the chance to gradually empower his/her students. The following list shows different goals I would attribute to the level of inquiry the teachers could aim for (cp. Abels, 2014; Abels & Lembens, 2015; Abels et al., 2014). At level 0 the students learn • to handle the equipment in the laboratory, e.g. a thermometer or a pHmeter, • to carry out different methods like titrating or filtering, 27

• to follow the safety procedures, • to read and follow descriptions of experiments. At level 1 the students learn additionally • • • •

to observe, to write down observations and interpret them in teams, to apply their knowledge to draw conclusions and assess them, to debate and defend their conclusions.

At level 2 the students enhance their abilities because they learn • to generate hypotheses, • to plan and conduct experiments, • to consider influencing factors e.g. how much of a chemical or which devices they use and to defend their decisions, • to control variables • to explain and reason their data collection methods, • to align the results with their previously formulated hypotheses, • to change or adapt the chosen data collection methods. At level 3 they learn furthermore • to ask scientific questions and • to shoulder responsibility for the whole inquiry process. Every level has its justification and should be chosen according to the abilities of the students and the task which should be accomplished. The content, the available materials, the goals a teacher strives for also have an influence on the utilized level of inquiry (Blanchard et al., 2010). Even if it should be the “ultimate goal” (N. G. Lederman, 2008, p. 32) to end up with level 3 inquiries some students surely need more time to reach this goal. I would like to dissociate myself from this statement. Students and teachers should work with the optimal suitable level of inquiry determined by content, provided scaffolding, abilities, etc. This is not necessarily a level 3 inquiry. Also, in regard to the cognitive load theory (Sweller, 2006), a successive introduction to a complex inquiry process is advisable to reduce the number of elements which have to be processed at one time. At every stage or level, inquiry-based learning is quite strenuous. The students have to work on demanding tasks, shoulder responsibility (varying according to 28

the applied level), and apply and develop their knowledge further. What motivates students to undergo this challenge? According to the SelfDetermination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2012; Ryan & Deci, 2000), the three identified needs of the self are: competence, relatedness, and autonomy. It is important to satisfy these needs to foster intrinsic motivation. “This […] is of great significance for individuals who wish to motivate others in a way that engenders commitment, effort, and high quality performance” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 76). The inquiry process has the capacity to allow autonomy, competence and relatedness at any level (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Ranging from level 0, where students learn to handle laboratory equipment successfully, all the way up to level 3 where students ask and inquire their own scientific questions. To learn to do inquiry is only one of the goals mentioned by Abrams (see chapter 3). The meta-level of learning about inquiry is important as well. The contents which should be learned are aspects of the nature of science and aspects of the nature of scientific inquiry. Both are described in the following chapter. 3.4

Nature of Science and Nature of Scientific Inquiry

Schwartz, Lederman, and Lederman (2008) distinguish between Nature of Science (NOS) and Nature of Scientific Inquiry (NOSI) as “NOS aspects are those that pertain most to the product of inquiry, the scientific knowledge. NOSI aspects are those that pertain most to the processes of inquiry, the ‘how’ the knowledge is generated and accepted [emphasis original] (ibid., p. 3).” In the book “Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards” both are mentioned: “Science as Inquiry” which corresponds with NOSI as well as “History and Nature of Science” (National Research Council, 2000). Even if the differentiation seems clear there are areas which overlap (Schwartz et al., 2008), e.g. the terms/skills observation and inference. To observe and to infer belong to the skills of a scientific inquiry process and are reflected as a part of NOSI, but the ability to distinguish between an observation and an inference belongs to the nature of science (NOS). As Lederman put it NOSI and NOS are “although different, […] intimately related” (N. G. Lederman, 2007, p. 835). As the implementation of inquiry-based learning is central in my work the processoriented NOSI aspects are of more importance. Because of this I discuss NOSI in greater detail whereas NOS aspects are only mentioned. N. G. Lederman (2007) mentions six main characteristics of the nature of science (NOS) and scientific knowledge that students should learn. These are: 29

The difference between observation and inference, The difference between theories and laws, The involvement of creativity in science e.g. to create a useful model, That scientists are biased in their work by their knowledge, beliefs, experience, etc., • Science is culturally embedded, • And scientific knowledge is subject to change e.g. when new evidence is found. (cp. N. G. Lederman, 2007; N. G. Lederman, Lederman, & Antink, 2013)

• • • •

Out of a literature review, Schwartz et al. (2008, p. 4 ff.) collected the following general aspects of NOSI: a) “Questions guide investigations”: This first general aspect includes that all investigations start with a question but not necessarily with a hypothesis. b) “Multiple methods of scientific investigations”: Depending on the question asked, a suitable method must be applied. So, there is no single scientific method scientists must follow but different methods like observations, experimental designs etc. Furthermore, different scientists may choose different methods to answer the same question. c) “Multiple purposes of scientific investigations” There are many reasons for starting a scientific investigation e.g. societal or practical reasons or curiosity. d) “Justification of scientific knowledge”: “The processes of negotiating meaning and gaining consensus involve building justification for claims. Evidence, consistency, and recognition of alternatives are associated elements” (Schwartz et al., 2008, p. 5). It is important to state that as data does not stand by itself, different researchers can justifiably interpret data in different ways (Osborne, Collins, Ratcliffe, Millar, & Duschl, 2003). e) “Recognition and handling of anomalous data”: Every investigation is accompanied by expectations. It is important to recognize anomalous data and to decide how to handle this data. Often such data provokes new questions and investigations. These investigations can even lead to changes of a theory. Other approaches to anomalous data can be e.g. rejection of the data because of errors of various origins as well as inclusion of the data without further explanation. f) “Sources, roles of, and distinctions between data and evidence”: Data is collected during the investigation in various forms like numbers, samples, etc. “Evidence is a product of data analysis and interpretation” (Schwartz et al., 2008, p. 5).

30

g) “Community of practice”: Each research area has its community where papers and results are discussed. Within each community, standards were generated on how scientific knowledge is handled. With the introduction of scientific practices (National Research Council, 2012) Lederman et al. (2014) brought the aspects up to date. “[…], students should develop an informed understanding of the following aspects of scientific inquiry: (1) scientific investigations all begin with a question and do not necessarily test a hypothesis; (2) there is no single set of steps followed in all investigations (i.e. there is no single scientific method); (3) inquiry procedures are guided by the question asked; (4) all scientists performing the same procedures may not get the same results; (5) inquiry procedures can influence results; (6) research conclusions must be consistent with the data collected; (7) scientific data are not the same as scientific evidence; and that (8) explanations are developed from a combination of collected data and what is already known” (J. S. Lederman et al., 2014, p. 68). When comparing of the two lists of NOSI aspects a few differences become evident. The list from 2014 stresses the influence of the chosen procedure on the results obtained which also matches one of the new practices in the NGSS (NGSS Lead States, 2013). On the one side, different methods which can be chosen at one time produce different data. On the other hand, new methods can be chosen by technological advancements or new technology. These new methods can produce results which advance our knowledge. The aspect (8) which states that explanations derive from a combination of data and already existing knowledge become more important now. Up to now this aspect was implicitly part of the aspect d) “Justification of scientific knowledge”. The aspect about the importance of the community of practice has faded from the spotlight. It seems that the teaching about the power of the community, how they receive papers, and how they discuss and value results (e.g. at conferences) has become less important for the science curriculum. Another aspect which is not mentioned anymore in the aspects of Lederman et al. (2014) is that there are ‘multiple purposes of scientific investigations’. Osborne et al. (2003) published “ideas about science” which mentions two additional NOSI aspects. These additional aspects are: a) “Scientific Method and Critical Testing” (Osborne et al., 2003, p. 706) which stresses experiments as an 31

important method for testing ideas and not just for demonstrating phenomena and b) “Creativity” as an aspect which should not only be taught to but felt by the students. This means that students should have the opportunity to be creative themselves. All the aspects concerning the nature of science as well as the nature of scientific inquiry foster the development of an adequate scientific literacy (N. G. Lederman et al., 2013). As Lederman et al. put it, “Without such knowledge [knowledge about NOS and NOSI; author’s note], students’ will be compromised in their ability to make informed decisions. Without such knowledge, students will not be able to emulate the desired goal of scientific literacy” (N. G. Lederman et al., 2013, p. 9). The goal is that everyone becomes scientifically literate as deduced in chapter 2. “And everyone deserves to share in the excitement and personal fulfillment that can come from understanding and learning about the natural world” (National Research Council, 1996, p. 1). The goal of “Science for all” which was, among others, derived from the Project 2061 “Science for All Americans” (AAAS, 1989), leads to the second important part in my thesis: diversity. In 1990, the “World Conference on Education for All” was held and led to the “World Declaration of Education for All: Meeting Basic Learning Needs” (UNESCO, 1990). This declaration states that “[e]very person […] shall be able to benefit from educational opportunities designed to meet their basic learning needs. These needs comprise both essential learning tools (such as literacy […]) and the basic learning content (such as knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes) required by human beings to be able to […] improve the quality of their lives, to make informed decisions, and to continue learning” (UNESCO, 1990, p. 4). The world conference led to the international project “Project 2000+: Scientific and Technological Literacy for All” by UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) and ICASE (International Council of Associations for Science Education) which started in 1993 and was also centered around the notion of requirements for a citizen (UNESCO, 1993). In all these initiatives the endeavor is scientific literacy for all independent of their future careers. The following chapter introduces the concept of diversity; afterwards the two concepts diversity and inquiry-based learning are combined.

32

4 Diversity Diversity in the educational context has its origin in Diversity Management. This is a movement in companies not only to tolerate the diversity of the employees, but to welcome and make use of it in order to enhance the success of the company. So strategies, programs and arrangements are implemented to handle diversity in organizations constructively (Krell, Riedmüller, Sieben, & Vinz, 2007). The diversity at the workplace can be manifold, e.g. internal dimensions like age or gender, external dimensions like personal habits or income and organizational dimensions like management status or work field (Figure 5). So diversity management includes “social organization and different principles by which people, from context to context, from situation to situation, mark themselves and each other as different” (Vertovec, 2009, p. 9).

Figure 5: Diversity wheel (Gardenswartz & Rowe, 2003, p. 33)

In the USA, the most frequent of all these dimensions, the “Big 8”, are highlighted. They are: “race, gender, ethnicity/nationality, organizational 33

role/function, age, sexual orientation, mental/physical ability and religion” (Krell et al., 2007, p. 9). Even if the dimension “race” is still common in AngloAmerican context it is not used anymore in Europe as it has too negative a connotation besides the biological one - there is just one human race. In school additional dimensions which result from the “Big 8” like motivation, language skills, attainment levels, interest, prior knowledge, etc. should be mentioned (Bohl, Bönsch, Trautmann, & Wischer, 2012). Indeed, framing the differences in these dimensions allows us to show the variety of humans and personalities, but nevertheless it is a reduction and simplification of persons to only a few aspects (Franken, 2015). To make diversity manageable a reduction to a few dimensions is important. Due to social developments like globalization, migration, demographic and value changes, etc. the relevance of diversity management is increasing. The 2009 PISA results show that student performance is dependent on these developments (OECD, 2010a). Family background, social-economic context and migration status are the main determinants (Markic & Abels, 2014; OECD, 2010a, 2010b). “School education must therefore seek to overcome socioeconomic inequalities throughout societies while at the same time utilize the benefits that diversity brings to schools and classrooms” (Burns & ShadoianGersing, 2010, p. 20). In the concept of diversity the different needs of learners are seen “as a challenge to be dealt with actively” (Sliwka, 2010, p. 213). Diversity should be perceived as an advantage and as a resource for learning. The perception of diversity is often biased politically and ideologically. To this day diversity is regarded as a problem rather than a resource or a right. So it is the teachers’ responsibility to decide “which model [like compensatory models, additive or transformative approaches, etc.; author’s note] best addresses their pupils’ needs, fosters their education, and has the potential to minimise social inequalities” (Luciak, 2010, p. 56). We have to bear in mind the social and cultural “contextual specificity” of each classroom instead of trying to install “universal best practices” to make an implemented strategy most effective (Gay, 2010, p. 258). In the following chapter different dimensions relevant for this thesis are discussed in detail. These are “Diversity and Migration”, “Diversity and Language”, and “Diversity and Culture”. 4.1

Diversity and Migration

As mentioned above, an increasing number of students with a migration background is found in schools due to globalization and migration. At the 34

secondary technical and vocational school (business section), for example 55% of the students have a migration background (49% in 2010/11); at colleges for higher vocational education (business section) 30% of the students have a migration background (24% in 2010/11) (Bruneforth, Lassnigg, Vogtenhuber, Schreiner, & Breit, 2016, p. 43). When thinking about students with a migration background we often have a picture in mind of a homogeneous group of people as they are summarized as the group “migrants” and certain characteristics of this group are outlined. It is important to avoid overgeneralizations which would lead to stereotyping (Holliday, 2003). These students are of course as diverse as every other group of students. Some came into the country recently while others were born here and have been living in this country for a second or third generation. Some have sound competencies in their first language both written and spoken, others can only talk in their first language and some of them do not have any competencies in their first language at all. The manifoldness of first languages in Britain, for example, inspired the creation of the term “super diversity” (Vertovec, 2006) which is “a notion intended to underline a level and kind of complexity surpassing anything the country has previously experienced” (Vertovec, 2007, p. 1024). The development from diversity towards super diversity can also be seen outside Britain. Gogolin (2010) discussed the situation in Germany, and this development can also be observed in Austria (Herzog-Punzenberger & Schnell, 2012). In Germany in 1960, more than 50% of migrants came from Poland and more than 2/3 of migrants came from just three countries (Poland, Czech Republic, Russian Federation) whereas in the year 2000, two-thirds of migrants came from eight different countries (Gogolin, 2010). In Austria in the 1960s, workers were recruited primarily to a small degree from Spain but mostly from the former Yugoslavia and Turkey (Tazi-Preve, Kytir, Lebhart, & Münz, 1999). In 2005, two-thirds of the migrants came from ten different countries. Three of the ten countries stem from the former Yugoslavia (Statistik Austria, 2014). In 2014 two-thirds of the migrants came from twelve different countries (Statistik Austria, 2014). Schools have to react to that super diversity. “The challenge of negotiating across multiple languages, cultures, and identities is a very real one in classrooms all over the world, one not to be lightly dismissed” (Hornberger, 2002, p. 43). Tajmel, Starl and Schön (2009) identified three types of barriers which migrants encounter. These are linguistic, cultural, and institutional barriers. The linguistic barriers are discussed in the part “Language and Migration” (chapter 4.2.1). The cultural barriers are discussed in “Diversity and Culture” (chapter 4.3). 35

4.2

Diversity and Language

Language is the most important mediator for teaching and learning (Langer, 2010). Nevertheless, the kind of language used to describe and to facilitate scientific content is different than the language of everyday life. In school teachers are confronted with language difficulties for various reasons. These reasons can be e.g. low educational background, low socio-economic background, or dyslexia. Another difficulty is that many students do not master the language of instruction which can be a consequence of migration or socioeconomic background, for example. 4.2.1 Language and Migration

PISA 2012 showed again that immigrant students performed significantly worse than non-immigrant students (OECD, 2014) in many countries. In Austria, the score-point difference (immigrant minus non-immigrant students) concerning science performance is -70, whereas the OECD average is -40. To put the numbers into perspective, the total Austrian science score is 506 points, the OECD average is 501 points. PISA 2009 examined the reading performance of ninth grade students. As reading was the focal point in 2009 I use the results of this study. The results showed a large gap between Austrian students and immigrant students who do not speak the test language at home (Herzog-Punzenberger & Schnell, 2012; Schwantner & Schreiner, 2010). While the Austrian students reached a mean value of 482 points, immigrant students of the second generation, students who were born in Austria reached 427 points. Immigrant students of the first generation, those who immigrated to Austria after they were born with their parents, reached just 384 points on the reading performance test. The difference between Austrian students and immigrant students is, on average, 68 points. The classification into immigrant students and non-immigrant students is often criticized. Furthermore, available data from statistics Austria does not allow to draw conclusions about the native country of the students’ parents. Categories regarding the ‘language spoken at home’ or ‘monolingualism and multilingualism’ could be more appropriate (Herzog-Punzenberger & Unterwurzacher, 2009). There are a few approaches to explain these differences in Austria. Disparities which are related to the origin of a person, also called ethnical disparities, can be explained by characteristics of the families as they have fewer socio-economic, cultural, and social resources available (Gogolin, 2009; Stanat & Edele, 2011). 36

Socio-economic resources (as defined by PISA among others) are tangible goods and the social standing of the family (indicators are income and the current job) (Baumert et al., 2000; Stanat & Edele, 2011). Indicators for cultural resources are, e.g. number of books at home or the parents’ education. Social resources are based on the social ties a person can rely on. An additional factor for the explanation of ethnical disparities is the mastery of the language of instruction (A. Müller & Stanat, 2006). One indicator for competency in the language of instruction is reading competence. August and Shanahan (2006) counter in their executive summary ‘Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners’ that “[t]here is surprisingly little evidence for the impact of sociocultural variables on literacy achievement or development. However, home language experiences can have a positive impact on literacy achievement” (August & Shanahan, 2006, p. 7). By comparing students with the same social status, the large gap (see above) between Austrian and immigrant students can be reduced to 45 points (Schwantner & Schreiner, 2010). Maas criticizes the interpretation of the PISA results in the following way: “[…] PISA did not show primarily the disadvantage of immigrant students in German schools but the deficient support of children from educationally alienated homes in general” [translated by the author] (Maas, 2005, p. 113). That quote is written from the German perspective but the critic may be also valid in Austrian. Linguistic performance is closely connected with performance in other subjects like science (H. H. Reich & Roth, 2002). As a consequence, the competencies of immigrant students in the language of instruction have to be improved upon in order to reduce disparities in the area of sciences. Cummins (1984, 2000) postulated two thresholds of linguistic proficiency. “The first, lower threshold must be attained by bilingual children in order to avoid cognitive disadvantages and the second, higher threshold was necessary to allow the potentially beneficial aspects of bilingualism to influence cognitive growth” (Cummins, 1984, p. 3). Cummins created the terms “Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills” (BICS) and “Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency” (CALP). This distinction is not a distinction between communicative and cognitive aspects of language proficiency; it is more a distinction between rapidly developed aspects of language proficiency and those aspects which need more time to develop. The development of CALP can take five to seven years (Cho & McDonnough, 2009). While BIC skills are employed in common social situations with other people, like talking on the telephone, CALP refers to formal academic learning and is essential for students to succeed in school. PISA 2009 focused mainly on reading comprehension, where CALP 37

is certainly necessary. When taking the significant amount of time for the development of CALP into consideration, the large gap between students who have the language of instruction as a first language and those students who do not could be explained, to an extent. In the context of bilingual proficiency, the “common underlying proficiency” (CUP) should be mentioned (Cummins, 1984). This includes literacy skills which can be learned in one language and transferred rapidly into the second language, e.g. how to write a letter. It is assumed that the transfer works in both directions, always from the stronger developed competency in one language, to the weaker developed in the other language (Gogolin, 2010). Here, the stronger developed competency is crucial in either language, not the overall stronger developed language. But it seems that the effect is limited to formal language learning, as a study of Turkish teenagers in Germany shows (Rauch, Jurecka, & Hesse, 2010). In this study the results show that reading competency is transferable between Turkish and English but not between Turkish and German. Rauch et al. (2010) explain the results by referring to the way the languages are taught. The learning of English is primarily formal language learning in German schools, whereas German lessons, more or less, require the mastering of the language itself to be able to work with novels, newspaper reports, etc. These considerations about the CUP are valid for students with sound competencies in their first language. But often the competencies are limited, so the transferring of competencies works only rarely because the students have not mastered the grammatical rules of their first language and the explicit instruction is not available to the students (Markic, 2012a). Additionally, science has its own terminology as the following chapter shows. 4.2.2 Language and Science – Scientific Terminology

The mastering of the language of instruction is substantial for every subject in school because the students are expected to “learn in [the language of instruction; author’s note] and through it as well” (Gibbons, 1998, p. 99; emphasis original). Additionally, science has a foreign language of its own: the scientific terminology. So, students who have problems with the language of instruction have severe problems learning science because they have to learn both languages at the same time. With the demand of “Science for all”, language should not be a barrier to learning science. Furthermore, the language of science is seen as a crucial part of scientific literacy (Wellington & Osborne, 2001). “Pupils should learn the language of science so that they can read critically and actively and develop an interest in reading about science; and develop competence in sceptically scrutinizing claims and arguments 38

made in the press and on television based on ‘scientific research’ or ‘scientific evidence’” (ibid., p. 5). As a consequence, every school subject including science has to contribute to language learning (cp. Gogolin, 2009; Lee, 2005; Lee & Fradd, 1998; Markic & Childs, 2016; Riebling, 2013). The learning of the language of chemistry consists of learning the phenomena and the theoretical concepts connected with the terminology. It becomes especially difficult and complex as the language uses many common words in specific contexts like rate or mass; and also that one single word is used for different phenomena like the word matter is used for an atom, a molecule, and a particle with a mass (Markic, Broggy, & Childs, 2013). The language of chemistry uses a special vocabulary for laboratory equipment, a special symbolic language with element symbols, formulae, and equations, it also uses mathematical equations, special patterns in arguing and writing, and so on (ibid.). “It is important for the chemistry teacher to be able to express himself on different linguistic levels, through the language of everyday life, scientific language, pictorial-concrete and abstract, and to be aware of the switch between the levels and to make them explicit” (Markic et al., 2013 , p. 136). Science cannot be taught without language. Every classroom activity like reading, discussing, writing, and listening requires “different dimensions of language use” (Markic & Childs, 2016, p. 434) 4.3

Diversity and Culture

Aside from the language differences that arise from globalization and migration the differences in culture are huge sometimes and must not be underestimated. The term “culture” refers in this thesis to “deep culture” of underlying values, norms, beliefs and assumptions (Shaules, 2007) which are showing in the behavior and actions and affect all dimensions of diversity. Diversity dimensions like ethnicity or religion reflect the culture. There are certain cultural influences which result in different behavior of the students in the classroom, how students learn and how they discuss. Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) provided helpful tools to discuss cultural orientation of people: a) small and large power distance which gives information about the inequality in a certain society expected and accepted by a less powerful person; b) collectivism vs. individualism where differences are noticeable in group work; it is “I” vs. “We”; 39

and c) uncertainty avoidance which “is the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations” (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005, p. 167). Hall (1984) provided the terms: a) high-context vs. low-context communication and b) monochronic vs. polychronic orientations toward time to describe differences in culture. With regard to point “a” in school, the difference would be obvious in presentations where students from low-context societies would present the experiments and its results more successfully and meet the expectations of argumentation better than a student from a high-context society because this student would “place the onus on the reader or listener to infer meaning from what is expressed (e.g., based on context and shared background experiences)” (Magee & Meier, 2011, no page). With regard to point “b” (monochronic vs. polychronic orientations) Austria, Germany and the USA are monochronic cultures where schedules are important for daily life (Hall, 1984). Their impact on inquiry-based learning shall be discussed separately in chapter 5. Again I would like to stress that all these generalizations do not fit all people in a particular culture but they give clues about differences in perception, misunderstandings in communication, and about the courage to speak up. Those convictions are deeply rooted and should be considered when dealing with a diverse group of people. All these considerations about migration, language, and culture ask for a different attitude towards instruction, learning and assessment. The way of handling difference and diversity remains one of the biggest problems in European classrooms (Meijer, 2010). Learning environments suitable for diverse groups have to be designed on the basis of internal differentiation, cooperation and communication. A culture of self- and criterion-referenced instead of normreferenced summative feedback is required (Sliwka, 2010). The so-called Rocard report states that inquiry-based learning has that potential (2007). The following chapter is dedicated to that supposed potential.

40

5 Inquiry-based Learning and Diversity In this chapter, the principles of inquiry-based learning will be combined with the requirements of a diverse classroom to illustrate the suitability of inquirybased learning to welcome the diversity in a classroom. Dumont et al. recommend that an effective learning environment should be learner-centered, structured and well-designed, profoundly personalized (differentiation upon the diversity of the students), inclusive, and social (students should work collaboratively) (Dumont et al., 2010, p. 18). The expert group of the European Commission (Rocard et al., 2007) calls for implementing inquiry-based learning in all schools. It “has proved its efficacy at both primary and secondary levels in increasing children’s and pupils’ interest and attainments [sic] levels while at the same time stimulating teacher motivation” (ibid., p. 2). Inquiry-based Science Education is recommended for high as well as low performing students as well as aiding gender mainstreaming so an advancement can be reached for all participating students (Rocard et al., 2007). A study by Wilson et al. (2010) examined the diversity dimensions race, gender, and free/reduced lunch (an indicator for socioeconomic background). Those dimensions had no influence on the positive results. “[T]he effectiveness of the inquiry-based instruction was consistent across these variables” (Wilson et al., 2010, p. 293). Those results are supported by another comparative study using a guided inquiry activity compared with generally used curriculum materials (Lynch et al., 2005) concerning the diversity dimensions socioeconomic status, ethnicity (race), English language learners, and gender. The results showed higher scores for the students participating in the guided inquiry activity than the students in the comparison group. Only the English language learners formed an exception (ibid.). Lynch et al. (2005) interpret the result in a way that the “[a]ssessment did not capture ESOL [English for speakers of other languages; author’s note] students’ increased understanding, due to its literacy demands” (Lynch et al., 2005, p. 935) or that the guided inquiry activity itself provided extensive literacy demands and needs modification. The European Commission promotes inquiry-based learning as a very flexible approach which can and should be combined with traditional deductive approaches to fulfill every student’s needs at any age. Inquiry-based learning is a suitable approach for students who do not benefit from traditional approaches. “This allows science education to be inclusive, which is of utmost importance in a knowledge society where being scientifically illiterate is of such high cost for both the individual and the society in general” (Rocard et al., 2007, p. 12). It can further social and personal skills, e.g. problem-solving skills or an understanding 41

of the nature of science can be developed (Scruggs, Mastropieri, & Okolo, 2008). As higher-order thinking skills get furthered, science is one of the most valuable subjects for students with difficulties in learning (Patton & Andre, 1989). As Abels (2015b) put it, “The level-based inquiry approach becomes inclusive when different students get the opportunity to work on different levels in the same classroom on the same topic at the same time” (Abels, 2015b, p. 82). So a key to accommodate diversity in the classroom is to suit the task to the student by utilizing measures of differentiation. These measures can be the variation of the levels of inquiry, the selection of supportive material and texts, or the individualized scaffolding during the performance of the task (ibid.). Those measures should ensure that every student can work within his or her zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978). In a diverse classroom, participation, respect, and appreciation are the keywords and inquiry-based learning can contribute to developing these attitudes and behaviors – especially as modifications of the method regarding the use of internal differentiation are possible (Trundle, 2008). Scruggs et al. (1998) also see a benefit of the inquiry approach in the possibility to modify the type of coaching, the difficulty of a task and the level of structuring. A variety of strategies, techniques, media, and activities can be applied to facilitate understanding and participation (Abels, 2012, 2014). Students with learning difficulties get “an opportunity to access and think about the phenomena they encounter each day” (Trundle, 2008). As advantageous as inquiry-based-learning is for teaching in a diverse classroom, teachers feel ill-prepared (Norman, Caseau, & Stefanich, 1998). Norman et al. criticized the lack of appropriate teacher education and they demand a better preparation. In the following part, two diversity dimensions are highlighted which should be considered carefully while implementing inquiry-based learning. First, considerations concerning culture are discussed followed by the importance of language in inquiry-based learning. Inquiry-based learning and Culture Science as a scientific discipline has emerged from male Western culture in the form of Western modern science (Ogunniyi, 1988). Inquiry-based science education as an educational approach has the same cultural origin with minor differences, e.g. U.S. Americans mostly prefer an inductive approach while Europeans might favor a deductive approach towards an inquiry (cp. Lee, 2002; Stewart & Bennet, 1991). For students with different cultural backgrounds 42

several challenges can arise (Lee, 2002; Mamlok-Naaman, Abels, & Markic, 2015). Inquiry-based learning at a higher inquiry level is more open-ended than traditional instruction (like defined in chapter 2) and the answers to a posed problem are not immediately provided. It is a challenge for students with a high uncertainty avoidance, where unknown situations are unwelcome, because every problem posed to the students is different to the one before. Also, the shift in hierarchy when working on inquiry-based tasks, where the teacher acts as a coach, can cause difficulties for students from a high power distance culture where “[…] students are not in a position to judge, criticize, or ask” (MamlokNaaman et al., 2015). The changing role of the teacher is discussed in chapter 6.1. Group work, as performed in inquiry-based learning, stresses the “We” (collectivism). To carry out an investigation and to record it systematically suits students with a monochronic orientation more than students with a polychronic orientation (see chapter 4.3) (Magee & Meier, 2011). These cultural differences present obstacles for students to take part in inquirybased lessons. The teacher has to be aware of the problems the students face because of their culture and needs to react on them. Some possibilities are discussed in chapter 6.3. An indispensable part of inquiry-based learning is talking, discussing, defending, reading, writing, and so on. So language is a large part of that. In the following chapter, the role and difficulties of language in school generally and in science lessons specifically are discussed. Inquiry-based learning and Language Language is an integral part of inquiry-based learning. To be able to communicate with team members, to use written sources like books or papers for research and to write sound protocols, students need to have a mastery of the language to a certain extent. The students have to be familiar with the language of instruction and they have to become familiar with the terminology of science. With the agreement that the fostering of language (language of instruction and scientific language) is vital, the next question arises: How can you do that? How can you support your students in the learning of scientific language while further improving their language of instruction? A study by Cho and McDonnough (2009) shows that teachers lack strategies to deal with language problems in diverse classrooms. In the next chapter, scaffolding will be discussed as a way to support students. Starting with general remarks about scaffolding, the scaffolding of inquiry-based learning (see chapter 6.1), and scaffolding of 43

language are discussed subsequently in chapter 6.2. The last subchapter is going to bring the topic to a close with cultural considerations of scaffolding.

44

6 Scaffolding The term scaffolding in an educational context came to light in the 1960s. This term is an iconic metaphor. In construction work the scaffold is necessary to build a house. And when the house is finished, you can deconstruct the scaffold and the house can stand by itself. In school, the teacher takes on those parts of the inquiry the students are not yet able to handle themselves. With increasing knowledge, skills, and competencies of the students, the teacher can reduce the support and the students take over more and more responsibilities. As Sawyer (2006, p. 12) puts it: “In effective learning environments, scaffolding is gradually added, modified, and removed according to the needs of the learner, and eventually the scaffolding fades away entirely.” But the actual realization of scaffolding in school context is quite complex and challenging. It is a “dynamic and situated act that is responsive to a particular set of circumstances in a particular classroom context” (Hammond & Gibbons, 2005, p. 12). Some literature distinguishes between macro-scaffolding and micro-scaffolding (Hammond & Gibbons, 2005; Riebling, 2013). Macro-scaffolding covers the scaffolding planned in advance, e.g. which task to introduce when to help master a topic. It also provides the materials which are needed for inquiry-based learning. Whereas micro-scaffolding reacts to the actual classroom situation and is not planned in advance (ibid.). For me, both are equally important and necessary to guide students successfully. In addition to the distinction between micro- and macro-scaffolding, I would like to distinguish the fields of scaffolding the teacher can turn his or her attention to like language or the task itself. In the following, ways of scaffolding students during inquiry-based learning are described. Afterwards, the scaffolding of language learning is discussed. 6.1

Scaffolding of Inquiry-based Learning

With an increasing openness of the inquiry process, the role and the responsibilities of the teachers (as well as the students) undergo a change (De Jong & Van der Valk, 2007; van der Valk & de Jong, 2009). The students either take responsibility for parts of the inquiry or the whole inquiry cycle depending on the level of inquiry (see Table 1, chapter 3.3). The students cannot fulfill their role immediately; they have to learn to accomplish their task. Accordingly, the role of the teacher is different. Especially in guided and open inquiry settings, the teachers’ role can be described as “guiding by scaffolding” (De Jong & Van der Valk, 2007, p. 109). Teachers have to teach the students to fulfill their role by balancing the freedom and support they give the students 45

when needed. In a case study, Crawford (2000) identified ten roles the teacher could adopt in inquiry-based teaching. These were the roles of motivator, guide, innovator, researcher (in evaluating his own teaching), mentor, or learner, among others. “[T]here is a vast amount of skilled activity required of a ‘teacher’ to get a learner to discover on his own – scaffolding the task in a way that assures that only those parts of the task within the child’s reach are left” (Bruner, 1977, p. xiv). In other words, the students should learn within the “zone of proximal development” (ZPD) (Vygotsky, 1978). When the demand is too high, students are not able to manage the given task even with help which is frustrating for the students. When the demand is too low, the task is easy to manage without help which may bore the students. But in the zone of proximal development the students can accomplish the tasks with help from teacher or other students (Figure 6). And this ZPD is the zone where scaffolding is needed and is most fruitful.

Figure 6: Position of the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978) within the range of demand

Critics characterize inquiry learning as a “minimally guided approach” and therefore as ineffective (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006, p. 75). It can be agreed that a minimal guided approach is ineffective, but inquiry-based learning must not be minimally guided. Sometimes there is confusion with the term inquiry-based learning as it is often equated with open inquiry which is too narrow as the levels of inquiry show (see e.g. Table 1). Open inquiry is just one variety of inquiry-based learning where the students shoulder responsibility for the whole process. Up to the point where the students are able to conduct a whole inquiry process themselves, the student has to learn (see chapter 3.1) and the teacher is highly involved in that learning by providing optimal scaffolding. And even then, the teacher needs to be constantly present to provide help when needed. The responsibilities and the techniques of scaffolding vary with the growing competences of the students. Crawford (2000) states, that the level of 46

teacher involvement is greatest in inquiry-based teaching as a teacher has to take on “[…] a myriad of constantly changing teacher roles that demands [sic] more active and complex participation than that suggested by the commonly used metaphor, teacher as facilitator” (Crawford, 2000, p. 935). In response to Kirschner et al. (2006), Hmelo-Silver, Golan Duncan and Chinn (2007) refer to extensive research on scaffolding (cp. also Hmelo-Silver & Barrows, 2006; Quintana et al., 2004). They stress that scaffolding, the guidance the students need, is important for effective inquiry-based learning (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007). There are many strategies which can help students to inquire. Furtak (2008) mentions a few useful strategies for guiding students at higher levels of inquiry. These are e.g. “asking ‘open’ or ‘real’ questions” or “revoicing or reflecting student comments” (Furtak, 2008, p. 57). Hmelo-Silver and Barrows (2006) studied expert teachers applying problem-based learning approaches. These teachers used open-ended questions and pushed for arguments from their students. At higher levels of inquiry it is also important to appreciate the students’ ideas and pay attention to the students’ thoughts and respond with further materials or questions (Duckworth, 2009). Applicable to all levels of inquiry, Van Zee and Minstrell (1997) introduced a special kind of question, the reflective toss. It consists of a student statement followed by a question from the teacher to facilitate student thinking and another student comment. To be more precise, “[t]he teacher’s question “catches” the meaning of the student’s statement [and] “throws” responsibility for thinking back to the student(s)” (van Zee & Minstrell, 1997, p. 235) by e.g. asking for more clarification. Scaffolding is undertaken with the intention of further inductive thinking to promote learning. The aim is to provide just enough information but not too much. Mastropieri, Scruggs and Butcher (1997) introduced a way to scaffold students by guided coaching. In this way of scaffolding, coaching levels are described where more revealing questions are asked with each level. Each question level should bring the student nearer to the underlying content of the experiment. The quality of the provided scaffolding by the teacher is crucial for success. As Blanchard et al. put it: “These analyses suggest that a student was ‘better off’ being in the traditional, verification laboratory section than in an inquiry section in which the interaction with the teacher was not properly structured” (Blanchard et al., 2010, p. 607).

47

6.2

Scaffolding of Language

Language is considered a major factor in learning. “It fosters or hinders learning in general, and in the chemistry classroom in particular” (Markic et al., 2013, p. 128). In a science classroom two kinds of language are present: The language in which the instructions are given (language of instruction) as well as the scientific language. Scientific language can be considered a language of its own because of its terminology. It is important to note that “[…], conceptual learning is orchestrated through a discourse that requires spoken and written language” (Gyllenpalm, Wickman, & Holmgren, 2010, p. 1156). So language in the classroom requires special attention (as mentioned in chapter 4.2) as it presents an important field for scaffolding. In the following part, subject-independent as well as subject-dependent strategies to further scientific language learning are presented. Subject independent strategies In the case of English language learners (ELL), the most commonly used scaffolding strategies (regardless of the subject) are: to allow extra time, to talk more slowly and to group the ELL students (Cho & McDonnough, 2009). Admittedly, this grouping of students to learn in a homogenous group, separate from the other students, does not correspond to the idea behind diversity management. In the following part a few further strategies are mentioned. General strategies for supporting students (including special needs students) in language learning are (cp. Carnevale & Wojnesitz, 2014; Markic, 2012b; Markic & Abels, 2013; Markic et al., 2013; Riebling, 2013): • Using pictures • Providing aids for building sentences • Providing aids for writing and understanding texts (e.g. vocabulary enhancements and text adaptions) • Using suitable teaching approaches Rösch (2009) mentions that teachers can • “use short sentence parts, active instead of passive forms • avoid nominalization and nesting • repeat sentence parts with important meaning and do without too much conciseness, • reduce difficult subject-related terms and symbolization in the instructional text; but also form the text graphically” (Rösch, 2009 , p. 165).

48

The simplification of the language is sometimes criticized because there is a risk of limiting the opportunities to learn the language properly for those students. Gogolin et al. (2011) formulate the signs of a quality education which furthers language development. In my opinion, the most important sign Gogolin et al. mention is that students have to have many opportunities for acquiring their language by using it actively and developing it further. In addition to the general methods of helping students with language, there are several strategies that can be used especially in science lessons. Strategies to scaffold scientific language learning Rösch (2009) suggests that new terms should be introduced with the articles and plurals to help the students with the subject specific vocabulary. Mnemonic strategies are helpful to support the students with recalling the vocabulary (Abels, 2014; Scruggs et al., 2008). Suitable verbs and word fields can help the students to get the gist of any new content (Rösch, 2009). Markic et al. (2013) recommend games like Dominos, Chinese whispers, and memory games which help the students to switch between representations. Since the students are already familiar with the rules of the games, they can be played without a long introduction. In the case of Chinese whispers the information passed on from one to another stays the same but the representational form changes every time, e.g. a student hears ethanol and passes on the formula C2H5OH (Markic et al., 2013). Another possibility is to integrate the first language of the students to specifically enhance scientific language (Gogolin et al., 2011; Riebling, 2013). So new content is acquired using the whole linguistic repertoire of the students. It is recommended that the teachers offer extended learning facilities so that the students are able to learn cooperatively (Gogolin et al., 2011). Therefore, students should be grouped on the basis of their first language (Riebling, 2013, p. 63). In Austria, a guideline was published with advice and tools for language sensitive lessons (Carnevale & Wojnesitz, 2014) including most (general as well as specific) of the strategies mentioned above. After discussing approaches for scaffolding concerning inquiry-based learning and language, the last part of this chapter shall give suggestions for welcoming cultural diversity by scaffolding. 6.3

Cultural Considerations concerning Scaffolding

With the idea of “science for all” in mind, the cultural background of the students should also be taken into consideration during scaffolding. Magee and Meier (2011), drawing on Banks and Banks (1993), suggest learning about the 49

beliefs and attitudes of the students by asking the students to complete an openended sentence about their thoughts about science. After that Magee and Meier (2011) suggest a sequence of steps to facilitate inquiry-based learning. At the beginning, the teacher should clearly articulate the assumptions, goals, and elements of inquiry-based learning and the way these elements can contradict some students’ worldviews. Afterwards, the teacher should take measures to support communication skills for successful collaboration. Finally, the teacher can focus on clear instructions and provide help in expressing themselves orally and written to reduce uncertainty (Magee & Meier, 2011). The aim of all these steps is to learn as much as possible about their cultural backgrounds and, with that knowledge, to individually give them the tools they need to work on the inquiry tasks. E.g. as group work is a central point in inquiry-based learning, the students might need activities to recognize differences in their personal views of group work and hints about how they can work together productively and satisfyingly. Since the autonomy during the process is challenging, it should be implemented successively according to the levels of inquiry (Lee, Buxton, Lewis, & LeRoy, 2006; Magee & Meier, 2011), which was already suggested in chapter 3.3 as a general recommendation for every student because inquirybased learning is a new (to most students) and challenging approach. With the approach of learning about their students views about science, the teacher can draw on the students’ funds of knowledge (Carlone, Johnson, & Eisenhart, 2014) which consists of the knowledge of a specific group and the individual knowledge due to specific circumstances, e.g. conditions within a family. Hence, scaffolding with regard to culture is partly about laying the foundations for inquiry-based learning so that the students feel well equipped and comfortable to master the challenge. Acknowledging and reacting to cultural differences accordingly, e.g. at the preparation for the presentation of the process and the results, during the process is important to scaffold successfully and meet the expectations of “science for all”.

50

7 Conclusion In these last chapters I conveyed the basis of the concept of my work. When we take a closer look at our students we find them all different. And “it belongs to basic understanding of teaching methodology and research to appreciate all children and teenagers in their difference and diversity and further them according to their individual abilities and skills” [translated by the author] (GFD, 2015, p. 1). As inquiry-based learning is considered to be beneficial for all students, as shown in chapter 3.2 in general and in chapter 5 concerning diversity, this concept was elaborated upon. Oriented on the levels of inquirybased learning (chapter 3.3), the successive introduction is recommended to support students to master one step after another under certain conditions (e.g. proper implementation and scaffolding). Considering the abilities necessary to conduct an inquiry (chapter 3.1), it is a formidable challenge for the students. With regard to the definition of scientific literacy (chapter 2) and the goal to qualify the students to become informed citizens, the approach of inquiry-based learning is advised (Dumont et al., 2010; F. H. Müller et al., 2013). The students have to learn, for example, to negotiate in a team which method is suitable to answer the research question, to follow through with their research plan, to justify their conclusions, and so on. The teacher leaves his/her classic role in order to act as a coach and accompanies his/her students by scaffolding which is crucial for the success of inquiry-based learning. The teachers have to learn to scaffold their students during their investigation using different strategies (see chapter 6.1). But the task at hand is often not the only challenge in an ordinary classroom. More and more, students have difficulties with the language of instruction in school due to migration among other reasons. Language skills greatly affect learning. Possible explanations and reasons for promoting language in every subject were given in chapter 4.2. So the scaffolding of language (see chapter 6.2) should be an integral part of the scaffolding process as students do not only have to master the language of instruction but also the language of chemistry (Markic & Childs, 2016). The main focus of my research was to illustrate the implementation of inquirybased learning in a diverse classroom, and to analyze the support measures the teacher provided. As one indicator for a possible success of inquiry-based learning the “views of scientific inquiry” questionnaire was used. The empirical section starts with the introduction of the research area followed by the research questions and the methods used to answer those questions.

51

8 Research Design The following section is dedicated to the research design. To frame the research, the circumstances are presented followed by the research questions. Then, the methods of collecting and analyzing the data collected are introduced striving for intersubjective understanding. 8.1

Research Area

The aim of this thesis is to clearly identify the challenges of introducing inquirybased learning in a diverse class and to analyze the scaffolding done to support the students. Therefore, the chosen school had to have a challenging heterogeneity. The research was conducted in an urban business school class (HAK) which is a college for higher vocational education. The business school educates students from grades nine to thirteen and ends with a higher education entrance qualification The students of the participating class were in the ninth grade and it was their first class in the new school. 31 students attended this class at the beginning of the school year. Many different nationalities, as well as different first languages, different religions, and a wide age range were represented in this particular class (see chapter 9 for more details). Due to all of these factors, this class presented a suitable foundation for my research. I chose the chemistry lab lessons for my studies since the plan was to introduce inquiry-based learning during these lessons and as a chemistry teacher myself it was of utmost interest to me. The laboratory lessons took place every three weeks for three school periods (150 minutes) in the chemistry/physics classroom and in all these lessons inquiry-based learning was the primary method implemented. The students were educated by one chemistry and physics teacher with 24 years of teaching experience and degrees in chemistry as well as in chemistry education for upper secondary schools. The teacher also taught an additional chemistry lesson in this class per week, in the classroom. A supporting teacher was present during most of the lab classes but he was only available for the lessons in the chemistry/physics classroom. He supervised some groups and responded to the students’ questions but he had no hand in the lesson planning. As this teacher was only partially available and was not actively involved in the planning, he was not the subject of research. The goal of the planned laboratory lessons was to introduce inquiry-based learning to the students during one school year (from September to June). It was 52

discussed with the teacher beforehand to implement inquiry-based learning step by step, starting with level 0. The goal was to reach level 3 – open inquiry – by the end of the school year. 8.2

Research Questions

The main questions were about how the class deals with inquiry-based learning, how the individuals’ and the whole class’ skills develop over the course of one school year (considering the differences described before), and how the teacher supports the students’ development. To lead the data collection and analysis, three questions were developed. 1. How does the teacher introduce inquiry-based learning in the class? 2. How does the teacher scaffold the students while conducting inquirybased learning and is it clear how the teacher takes the diversity of the class into consideration? 3. How do the students’ views of scientific inquiry change throughout the course of one school year? The first research question refers to the planning and the implementation of inquiry-based learning in the class. Since scaffolding is seen as crucial for inquiry-based learning (Blanchard et al., 2010), the second question shines a light on the scaffolding strategies the teacher uses during the laboratory lessons. The various methods of scaffolding are described. The third question raises the issue regarding the output of the students on the class as well as on an individual level. An increasing quality of the students’ views of scientific inquiry is expected. 8.3

Methods

Qualitative studies focus on a detailed exploration of certain parts of the everyday world. As the aim of the study at hand is an in-depth analysis of the initial situation and development of one class and its students over one school year as described in the research questions, a qualitative approach is the obvious choice. The interpretative paradigm (Keller, 2009; Lamnek, 2010) in conjunction with case studies as an approach to doing research (Lamnek, 2010; Yin, 2009) serve as important underlying methodological backgrounds for my qualitative research. That paradigm assumes that every interaction is an “interpretative process” [translated by the author] (Lamnek, 2010, p. 32). The objects (e.g. interaction between two students) used for the analysis are the result of an interpretative and interactive process of people within members of a 53

society (Lamnek, 2010). As a consequence, the researcher needs to find out how the subjects of the study construe the world on their own. How they experience their world and how they communicate (Rosenthal, 2011). The researcher looks at that construed reality with his/her own eyes, views and bias. It is important to keep in mind that all these considerations have an impact on the results so the researcher has to reveal his/her beliefs. The single case study approach is characterized by the description and analysis of a single case. Its aim is to identify (individual) typical pattern of behavior which are not unique or specific for the individual but manifestations of general structures (Lamnek, 2010, p. 284). The case study is complete when it is comprehensible (ibid.). The goal is to be consistent during the entire analysis process. Both of the methods chosen, thick description as well as the qualitative content analysis, are in line with that paradigm as they facilitate a process of interpretation of the interaction in the class between persons (teacher and students) and between the persons and the materials (tasks). Moreover, the interpretative paradigm is coherent for one thing with regard to the viewpoints of the nature of science (NOS; see chapter 3.4) where the researchers’ bias has to be kept in mind. Because a scientist interprets his/her actions based on his/her knowledge, beliefs etc. (N. G. Lederman, 2007), the researcher looks at reality with his/her own eyes in the same way (see above). Additionally, the interpretive paradigm is coherent with the constructivist view of learning which is strongly linked to inquiry-based learning. Therefore, it is consequent to look with the same lens at research as at science, science teaching and learning itself. This influences the decision for certain data collection methods. Another principle is intersubjectivity (Lamnek, 2010). Intersubjective comprehensibility means that the process of analysis is documented in such a way that the reader is able to reconstruct the analysis (Rosenthal, 2011). I strive for intersubjective comprehensibility in the way I document the research and the process of analysis. Another guideline for my research is the principle of openness concerning the situation of the collection of the data which is flexible and dynamic (Lamnek, 2010, p. 233) and also openness concerning the investigation process and interpretative content analysis (Rosenthal, 2011). This principle is fulfilled in adapting the qualitative content analysis for my purposes. Its goal is to keep the so-called “perception funnel” [translated by the author] open as wide as possible to be able to perceive unexpected results as well. (Lamnek, 2010, p. 20).

54

8.3.1 Methods of Data Collection

Manifold sources of information are needed in order to make an in-depth analysis of the prerequisites of the class and its students, the introduction of inquiry-based learning to the class, the scaffolding of the teacher as well as the development of the views about scientific inquiry over one school year. The analysis of the prerequisites of the class and its students were important to interrelate the diversity of the class with the introduction of inquiry-based learning and the scaffolding. The data sources are: • • • • •

Non-participant observations Video and audio recordings Questionnaires Interviews Task sheets.

I took on the role of a non-participant observer (Atteslander, 2003; Lamnek, 2010). The observation was unstructured and overt. As an observer, I sat in different places in the classroom and made notes and comments to mark interesting situations without interfering. The observation was unstructured in order to be open to the developments in the class and it is in line with the methodological principles of the interpretive paradigm (Lamnek, 2010). Video recordings of every laboratory lesson throughout the course of the school year were made to support the non-participant observer’s memories (30 school lessons altogether; one school lesson lasts 50 minutes). Therefore, one video camera with a complete view was enough. It was positioned in front of the class with the whole class in focus to see the activities and the pathways of the students as well as of the teacher. Those impressions were valuable to better assess how the students behaved in class, their take on the tasks as well as how the teacher moved within the class. As the research took place in a school, the parents of the students were asked for a written declaration of consent to allow their children to be part of the study. It was also necessary to submit a request for carrying out the study at the education authority in Vienna. Within that request I committed myself to obey the data privacy act (federal law gazette 165/99) and to use data exclusively for my study. So every student knew who I was and what I was doing there throughout the school year which resulted in an overt observation. It was very important for me to remind the students that I would treat their answers to the questionnaires and the recordings confidentially. I assured the students repeatedly that the data would be anonymized and that their teacher would have no access to the data collected. 55

After the observation and analysis of the first two sessions, I realized that not only was the video of the whole class interesting, but that I would also need the voices of the students more audible. The one video camera adequately covered the entire class but a second camera would not have been possible because of the layout of the space. So I began to audiotape the first two rows. The decision for these two rows was a practical one. As I mostly sat in the last row, I was not able to hear what they were talking about but they were the nearest to the video camera. So I decided that the coverage of the actions and the communication of the students would be best at those rows. As the students of these rows were members of the largest language group in the class they were considered representative for the class. To more adequately cover the scaffolding of the teacher additional audio recordings were made. For this purpose the teacher wore a microphone on the clothing. The task sheets of all laboratory lessons were needed to answer research question one (about the introduction of inquiry-based learning), as well as research question two (about the scaffolding of the teacher). Additionally, the students were asked to fill out four questionnaires during the school year (see Table 4). It was considered as important to keep the burden low for all participants. So the number as well as the duration of the questionnaires had to be kept to a minimum. I also decided to spread the questionnaires throughout the school year. It was not considered to be a problem because the data collected during the year related to variables which are considered to be (relatively) stable such as intelligence (Westermann, 2017). The following table (see Table 4) shows the questionnaires used and the date of the completion. Questionnaire

Date

Views of Scientific Inquiry (Schwartz et al., 2008)

September 2011

Demographic data

December 2011

Attitude towards science (OECD, 2005) Academic self-concept (Dickhäuser, Schöne, Spinath, & Stiensmeier-Pelster, 2002) Intelligence test (Weiß, 2006)

March 2012

Views of Scientific Inquiry (Schwartz et al., 2008)

June 2012

Table 4: Timetable of the questionnaires used

56

To monitor what the students did and wrote during their regular chemistry lesson, one student’s notebook was used as an additional resource. Since it was used solely to get an overview of the topics covered, one notebook seemed to be enough. That notebook was selected because of its completeness. 8.3.1.1 Views of Scientific Inquiry (VOSI)

The questionnaire about the views of scientific inquiry was used at the beginning (September) and at the end of the school year (June) to allow for a comparison between the answers to the questions. The aim was to find out about the development of the views of the students (research question three). As the original ‘Views of Scientific Inquiry’ (VOSI) questionnaire is written in English (Schwartz et al., 2008) I used the German Version of VOSI-S, translated by Zilker (2008). The translated version consists of five open-ended questions. To illustrate the style of the VOSI questionnaire, two example questions are printed below. The first question discusses the core elements of scientific investigations. 1. “A person interested in birds looked at hundreds of different types of birds who eat different types of food. He noticed that birds who eat similar types of food, tended to have similar shaped beaks. For example, birds who eat hard shelled nuts have short, strong beaks, and birds who eat insects from tide pools have long, slim beaks. He concluded that there is a relationship between beak shape and the type of food birds eat. a) Do you consider this person’s investigation to be scientific? Please explain why or why not. b) Do you consider this person's investigation to be an experiment? Please explain why or why not.” (cp. Schwartz et al., 2008, p. 14; Zilker, 2008) [retranslated by the author] The original VOSI questionnaire compares the teeth structure of meat eaters and plant eaters while the German Version takes a look at the shape of the beaks. 2. “(a) If several scientists, working independently, ask the same question and follow the same procedures to collect data, will they necessarily come to the same conclusions? Explain why or why not. (b) If several scientists, working independently, ask the same question and follow different procedures to collect data, will they necessarily come to the same conclusions? Explain why or why not. [emphasis in the original] (Schwartz et al., 2008, p. 17) The second sample question addresses many core aspects of the nature of science like creativity and the bias of scientists. The nature of scientific inquiry,

57

which is targeted here, is e.g. that ‘multiple methods’ can be used and ‘justification of scientific knowledge’. These two examples show how demanding this questionnaire is. For the first question the students have to process a long text before the questions are posed. The second question is quite difficult to answer because of the similarity of questions 2a and 2b if not read carefully. Another challenge for students who have difficulties with the language of instruction is to write a response which expresses their beliefs. I altered the German version because of the length of the entire questionnaire as well as the individual questions. Regarding the students’ language problems in class, three sub questions were cut from the German version. One was cut as the topic of the question was represented in another question. Two sub questions were considered too confusing, e.g. “c) Does your response to (a) change if the scientists are working together? Explain.” (Schwartz et al., 2008, p. 17). The second adaption I made concerned the question: “Is ‘data’ the same or different from ‘evidence’? Explain.” (Schwartz et al., 2008, p. 14). The word evidence was translated by Zilker (2008) with “Nachweis” which could be retranslated into proof. As “Nachweis” is mostly used as experimental proof it did not seem to fit. To avoid that association, the word “Beweis” was substituted in the questionnaire. The word “Beweis” can be retranslated to evidence just like in the original English version. The follow-up interviews with the students after the VOSI test helped to better understand their answers and were used for communicative validation. For this particular number of students, interviews with everyone are recommended. Unfortunately, only five students were available for follow-up interviews. 8.3.1.2 Questionnaire about Demographic Data, Attitude towards Science, and Academic Self-concept

The second questionnaire was completed in December and it was timed in such a way as to avoid the most stressful weeks for the students. The first part of the second questionnaire contained demographic data like age, gender, mother tongue4 and the grade (last teacher’s assessment) of their last chemistry class. The second part contained questions about their “attitude towards science” from the PISA 2006 student questionnaire (OECD, 2005). There are questions about 4

Back in 2011 when I compiled the questionnaires I used the word mother tongue. Current research prefers the term first language so in the following I also use first language as the language a person is exposed to from birth. 58

their preferences in science and about their confidence to solve some scientific tasks like asking scientific questions or to reading and interpreting a food label. See Figure 7 for an example. Q: How much do you agree with the statements below? Strongly Rather agree agree 5 b) Science is important for helping us to understand the natural world

Rather Strongly disagree disagree

Figure 7: Sample question of the PISA 2006 students questionnaire (OECD, 2005) with the scale used in the German translation [retranslated by the author]

The third part contained questions about their academic self-concept (Dickhäuser et al., 2002). The self-concept in dissociation of self-efficacy was deemed necessary in this research as it influences experience and behavior in manifold ways. This self-assessment poses questions like, “In chemistry it comes naturally to me to learn new things.” or “I know much about chemistry.” on a five-point Likert scale [translated by the author] (Dickhäuser et al., 2002, p. 405). Questionnaires are not in line with the interpretative paradigm, per se, because the attempt to explain social phenomena by analyzing standardized questionnaires falls short (Keller, 2009). But following the principle of openness, I also use the individual answers of the students for interpretation in order to be closer to the demands of the interpretative paradigm. 8.3.1.3 Intelligence Test CFT 20-R

The third questionnaire used was the intelligence test CFT 20-R (Weiß, 2006) which was completed in March. This test can be used for students from grades three to thirteen (ages 8.5 to 19) and adults from 20 to 60 years of age. It is designed as an objective, reliable and valid method for measuring the intelligence and suitable for group testing. The intelligence test CFT 20-R (Weiß, 2006), which stands for Culture Fair Test, is aptly named as it uses only non-verbal tasks. Because of that, this test is suitable for measuring the intelligence of students who have difficulties with language. Even though it limits the problems caused by language, “a culture-free test is [still] an illusion” (Rosselli & Ardila, 2003, p. 327). The detailed and lengthy instructions are challenging even if the test itself is free of language. 5

The German version of the questionnaire differs from the English version in the scale used. The possible answer “agree” in the English version is translated into German as “rather agree”. 59

In this test, the processing capacity of figural problems – structural model according to Jäger (1982) – is captured. With these tasks, complex information that is not instantly solvable has to be processed. Instead, they need logical and accurate thinking, adducting as well as appropriate judging of information and manifold interrelating (Weiß, 2006). I conducted this test with this class because I consider these proficiencies as important for the accomplishment of inquiry tasks as choosing a suitable method, handling data, and interpreting the data in order to acquire logical and accurate thinking. Furthermore, I was interested in the age IQ of the students as an additional piece of information about the composition of the class. The CFT 20-R consists of two parts. I only used the first part with an extended test time because it is recommended for groups with a migration background and language diversity (which seems odd for a test which is considered to be culturefair). The first part of the test is composed of 56 items which are structured into four subtests. They are multiple choice items with five possible answers, one correct answer each. The execution of the test was strictly standardized. I invited a colleague of mine to be present during the test to help me to control the test conditions. The teacher of the class and I were also present. The reality of the execution was quite different. The strict procedure of the test caused unrest among the students. As a consequence, the students became fidgety and noisy. So I had to take countermeasures to regain a steady working climate. I shortened the introduction texts and just tried to make sure that the students understood the upcoming tasks. All students finished the test which made me quite proud of them. Because of the adaptions made during the test, the results have been compromised. The results of this test were adapted to the ages rather than the grade as there is a wide age range within the class. In the following chapters only the age-IQ is used. 8.3.2 Methods of Analyzing Data

All of the data collected should be used to answer the research questions posed. So appropriate methods of data analysis were needed. The first method used for the description of the class and its students is the thick description described in the following chapter. Subsequently, the categorization of the task sheets, the analysis of the scaffolding, the analysis of the development of the students’ views of scientific inquiry, and the analysis of their attitudes towards science and the academic self-concept are described.

60

8.3.2.1 Description of the Class and its Students

In this qualitative case study of one school class, I want to paint a vivid picture of what is going on during the lab lessons. What are they doing? What are they saying? A thick description seemed appropriate. The thick description by Clifford Geertz (1987) stems from culture studies. Two parts are necessary: an accurate observation and description as well as an interpretation. A thin description describes only the behavior. An example would be: “Two boys fairly swiftly contract the eyelids of their right eyes. In the first boy this is only an involuntary twitch; but the other is winking conspiratorially to an accomplice. At the lowest or the thinnest level of description the two contractions of the eyelids may be exactly alike.” (Ryle, 2009, p. 494). So the interpretation of the contracting of the eyelid was possible because the “public code” is known to the researcher. The public code in this case is that a voluntary swift contraction of one eye is a wink. So, during the analysis, the researcher has to understand the action, has to become familiar with the “public code” and, in the end, needs to “sort […] out the structures of signification”(Geertz, 1973, p. 9) which is fairly easy in the case of the winking boy, but it gives the impression that – like Geertz put it – “intellectual effort” is needed (1973, p. 7). Regarding the thick description, the aim of the analysis in this thesis is to observe, describe and interpret accurately. So it seems appropriate to borrow this concept – even if this study has no aspiration to be a cultural study. A guiding line during the analysis was: “So you should bear in mind that every action has a meaning and it should be asked what is the meaning of this [translated by the author].(Geertz, 1987, p. 16) 8.3.2.2 Categorization of the Task Sheets

The researcher spoke to the teacher about the advantages of a successive introduction of inquiry-based learning beforehand but there was no further input and the tasks were unknown to the researcher. The lab lessons should demonstrate an increase in the openness of inquiry. At the beginning of the school year, the tasks within the lab class should be level 0 (see chapter 3.3) and increase in openness towards Level 3. To observe the development all tasks sheets introduced by the teacher were categorized according to the indicators of each level (see chapter 3.3). A task sheet was considered to be Level 0 if the whole process was prescribed. The task contains the topic, a question, which materials to use, the procedure, results and calculations if necessary, and a conclusion. Completing a table without further conclusions also counts as a Level 0 task. 61

For example, a section of the task “gilding of a cent coin” was introduced. As the task sheet was written in German, an overview of the steps and the content will be given (Figure 8). The aims for this task are manifold. Safety procedures, terminology and handling of devices used in the laboratory were emphasized and practiced. In this case, no results and no conclusions had to be discussed. The success of this task was apparent in the successfully gilded coin.

Safety procedures: Safety glasses (acids and bases are used) Tie the hair back, hot items (hot plate, Bunsen burner) Material: The required materials are listed here. Experimental set-up: Zinc dust is dissolved in a concentrated potassium hydroxide (KOH) solution. This solution is heated on a hot plate. … [Picture of the experimental set-up, every part including the ingredients of the solution is labeled.] Procedure: • A 2 or 5 cent coin is put into the hot solution [which was prepared in the experimental set-up]. The coin stays in that solution until it turns silver. • The zinc dust is going to be washed off with cold water. To do that… • Then… [Picture of the last step of the process where the coin is moved through the blue flame of the Bunsen burner] Figure 8: Example for a Level 0 task; section of the task “Gilding of a cent coin” 6

In Level 1 tasks, the students are responsible for the results and the conclusion. The results can be discussed and interpreted by the group or by the whole class. The topic, the question, the materials as well as the procedure are still specified. A simple inserting of values into a formula or table is not enough for the task to count as Level 1. An example for a level one task is presented in Figure 9. 6

The translation of all tasks was done by the author. It is intended to be as close as possible to the original wording. 62

Topic: Identifying substances via their density Question: What material does the 2 cent coins consist of? That question shall be answered by assaying the density and comparing the density with the values in a table. Materials: [The required materials are listed here.] Procedure: a) Measure the mass of ten coins on a scale. b) Measure the volume of these coins by water displacement in a syringe. You need: The volume of water before adding the coins and the volume of the water and coins after adding the coins. [Picture to visualize the syringes before and after adding the coins] Observations, measured values: Write down the values measured for the mass and both volumes into the lab report. Calculation and interpretation: Write how you calculated the volume of the coins and their density into your lab report. Describe in complete sentences which material the coins consist of by using your calculations and comparing them to the table. [Table of densities of twelve different metals]

Figure 9: Example of a level 1 task; section of the task: “What material does the 2 cent coins consist of?” (TS 20111107)

The teacher emphasized the importance of predictions and to justify the predictions. After conducting the experiment, the next step is to evaluate whether or not the predictions were correct and if they were wrong, why? This cognitive effort is also considered a Level 1 experiment. The example here is “What has higher mass? (see Figure 10).

63

Figure 10: Example of a level 1 task: “What has higher mass?” (TS20111010)

Level 2 tasks are differentiated from level 1 tasks by the possibility for the students to design the investigation, either in groups or with the help of the teacher and choose the materials needed for the task in addition to the demands of a Level 1 task. The materials are provided by the teacher. An example here would be the task “How can you differentiate between deionized water and salt water?” (TS 20111128) where the students have to plan the investigation.

64

1. Start with the lab report: Topic: pure water – salt water Leading question: How can you differentiate between water and salt water without tasting them? 2. Write down your assumption. 3. Carefully consider how you want to conduct your experiment. Describe what you want to do in the lab report in the section “Procedure”. 4. Hand in the lab report with your prediction and your planned procedure. In the next lesson, the teacher is going to provide the materials for your investigation (if possible). Conduct your investigation, describe your observations and write in the interpretation of whether or not the method is suitable to differentiate between salt water and deionized water. Figure 11: Example for a level 2 task “How can you differentiate between deionized water and salt water?” (TS20111128) [translated by the author] (Puddu & Koliander, 2013, p. 30)

The challenge for the students to find and phrase a research question alone or together with the teacher is an indicator of a Level 3 task. Also the other parts of the inquiry are open to the student. Level 3 was not reached during the school year, therefore no example can be provided. 8.3.2.3 Analysis of the Scaffolding

To answer the research question for this part (research question two), I decided to use the analyzing technique qualitative content analysis. Content analysis (Mayring, 2010) is used to analyze communication which is recorded in any form, e.g. texts or pictures, by a systematic approach guided by rules. Content analysis analyzed the material guided by a question. The results are interpreted within the respective theoretical framework. Conclusions on certain aspects of communications are drawn from statements about the material analyzed by using content analysis (Mayring, 2010). Qualitative content analysis is suitable for case studies because of the “rather open, descriptive and interpretive methodology” (Mayring, 2010, p. 23) [translated by the author]. I chose qualitative content analysis because it is my goal to reduce the massive amount of data and extract the various strategies used to support and guide the students during inquiry lessons. I mainly used audio recordings because of the quality. The voices were clearest on those recordings. In some cases, to better 65

understand the actions, video recordings and notes from the non-participant observations were used complementarily. Parts of the material were transcribed and were also used for coding. That affected those parts of the materials I discussed with other researchers, specifically the parts where the first language of the students was translated. It was important for me to approach the data with an open-mind, so I chose to work with qualitative content analysis using inductive categories (GläserZikuda, 2005; Mayring, 2008). Furthermore, to stay true to the original material, I decided against using the proposed text coping processes like generalization, selection, etc. (cf. Mayring, 2008, p. 39) and with only one level of abstraction. That one level is going to provide the inductive category. This approach is consistent with the interpretative paradigm since I aim to understand the situation first and subsequently interpret the situation which matches the one level of abstraction. The following figure shows the steps for the analysis.

Figure 12: Process model of forming inductive categories (translated from Mayring, 2008, p. 75)

To handle the abundance of data I used the program atlas.ti. In the first round of inductive coding I decided to code more than half of the material, to be sure to reach saturation. Four categories evolved. These were: “Language”, “To do Inquiry”, “Learning about inquiry” and “Content learning”. Interestingly, all the categories (except for language) match the goals set by Abrams et al (2008).

66

Figure 13: Four categories of scaffolding

The category “Language” contains inductive codes concerning the language in the task sheets, video and audio recordings where the teacher tries to help the students understand written and oral language like combining text and visualizations. The category “To do Inquiry” contains guidance concerning conducting and protocolling the inquiry process. The scaffolding in this category differs depending on the inquiry level. One single example suits both categories. Sometimes the teacher explained the task orally (in addition to the written task sheet) and asked the students to repeat the task in their own words. This is part of the inquiry process but it is also a part of the language support. The third category “Learning about Inquiry” covers codes where the teacher talks about the inquiry process on a meta-level like “sources of error”. The category “Content learning” is ever present in the task sheets, during the inquiry process, and in the students’ lab reports. The coding of the material was continued until saturation was reached. I developed a coding manual to help other people to reenact (see appendix 1, p. 159 ff.). I deliberately decided against calculating inter-rater reliability. As this work is strictly qualitative and my goal is to extract the various scaffolding strategies, counting did not seem reasonable. Additionally, using inductive coding which is strongly dependent on the researcher, inter-rater reliability is difficult to reach. But I aim to present my research in a way that is replicable by other researchers. So I developed a coding manual which I revised with colleagues (see appendix 1). The refining process of the coding manual was done in three steps with argumentative validation (Lamnek, 2010) in mind. The first version of the manual was discussed with just one colleague. After the first refining, I discussed the manual with a small group of researchers within my department. After the second refining, the same group of researchers was asked to code a 67

transcript to bring the remaining difficulties to light. After that the coding manual was finalized. 8.3.2.4 Analysis of the Development of the Views of Scientific Inquiry

The questionnaire about the “views of scientific inquiry” (VOSI) was part of the first and the fourth questionnaire the students filled in. It consists of five questions answered at the beginning and the end of the school year. As the VOSI is a questionnaire with open-ended questions, qualitative content analysis according to Mayring (Flick, 2009; Mayring, 2008) was considered an appropriate method for analysis. Mayring offers different types of analysis for dealing with the qualitative material. The suitable method for answering these three questions is the “scaled structuring” (translated by the author for “skalierende Strukturierung”) to evaluate the students’ answers (Mayring, 2008). The students’ answers were transcribed and analyzed using the qualitative data analysis software Atlas.ti. The analysis of the questionnaires was guided by three main questions 1. How elaborate are the students’ views on the Nature of Scientific Inquiry demonstrated in the first questionnaire? 2. How elaborate are the students’ views on the Nature of Scientific Inquiry demonstrated in the second questionnaire? 3. To what extent is a development observable between the first and the second questionnaire? The procedure of the scaled structuring is described in Figure 14.

68

Figure 14: The eight steps of the scaled structuring according to Mayring (2008, p. 93)

In following the procedure of the scaled structuring, the first four steps are described in detail. Step 1: Definition of the unit of analysis: The coding unit describes the smallest unit of the material which is allowed to be coded. I decided on coding at least two words to be able to interpret the statement. So a simple yes or no was not able to be encoded. The unit of context consists of the answers to the first questionnaire for the coding of the first questionnaire. For the second questionnaire, the answers to the questions as well as the answers from the interview (if available) are part of the unit of context. The first questionnaire is not taken into consideration for the coding of the second one. Each question provides the unit of context for the related answer. The scoring unit describes the order in which the material is coded. In my case, the questions were coded successively from question one to five from the first questionnaire of one student followed by those of the next student. After coding all the answers from the first questionnaire the answers of the second questionnaire were coded. The second questionnaires were coded similarly to get a valuation of both measuring dates. The data basis of the second questionnaire was enriched by the data from the interviews. This data was inserted into the material but was clearly labeled. The comparison of both dates took place thereafter. 69

Step 2: Decision about the valuation dimension My valuation dimension is the view on the nature of scientific inquiry. Step 3: Decision on the manifestations of the system of categories The manifestations are covered by the general aspects of the nature of scientific inquiry which are: “questions guide investigations”, “multiple methods of scientific investigations”, “multiple purposes of scientific investigations”, “justification of scientific knowledge”, “recognition and handling of anomalous data”, “sources, roles of, and distinctions between data and evidence”, and “community of practice” (Schwartz et al., 2008, p. 4 ff.). Within those categories the answers are characterized as “informed”, “transitional”, and “naïve”. Hence they build a scale. An additional characterization “no answer” was added to show the topics where students did not answer. Step 4: Create definitions, rules of coding, coding examples (anchors) for each category a) Questions guide investigation An informed view shows an understanding that scientists must ask questions before hypothesizing and analyzing. That view shows that a scientific question has significant impact on the scientific investigation. In contrary, students with a naïve view would not agree with the question as a starting point for an investigation. b) Multiple methods of scientific investigation Students with an informed view would agree that there is not one single method and that scientists use different kinds of investigations which are in accordance with the question the scientist wants to answer (National Research Council, 2000). The students would also agree with the statement that scientists who ask the same questions can follow different procedures. Students with a naïve view would refer to the existence of one single “scientific method” all scientists have to follow. c) Multiple purposes of scientific investigations An informed view would include that the question to investigate can arise from various sources and can serve multiple purposes. Reasons for choosing a question could be e.g. curiosity, funding, practicality or social impact. 70

A naïve view would suggest that there is only one reason. d) Justification of scientific knowledge An informed view stresses the necessity of negotiating meaning and gaining consensus in the process of obtaining a justification. “Scientific explanations emphasize evidence, have logically consistent arguments, and use scientific principles, models, and theories” (National Research Council, 2000, p. 20). It also contains the fact that scientists who ask the same question can validly come to different conclusions even if they apply similar procedures. Even scientists who interpret the same data can come to different conclusions. A naïve view would be that there is only one true answer and negotiating is not necessary. So scientists who ask the same question have to answer the question in the same way. e) Recognition and handling of anomalous data An informed view reflects that since investigations are guided by current knowledge, the scientists have certain expectations about the data. Anomalous data does not fit these expectations. There are various possibilities to handling that anomalous data, e.g. rejection, ignoring, acceptance accompanied by a theory change, and so on. A naïve view, by contrast, would interpret anomalous data as a mistake in the process. f) Sources, roles of, and distinctions between data and evidence An informed view would agree that “data and evidence serve different purposes and come from different sources” (Schwartz et al., 2008, p. 5). Data are observations, whereas evidence is a product of data analysis and interpretation. Students with a naïve view cannot distinguish between data and evidence. g) Community of practice An informed view would be that communication within the community of practice is important for the process of scientific inquiry. “Communication and peer review impact what and how science progresses” (Schwartz et al., 2008, p. 6). A naïve view would be that a scientist works and produces knowledge alone. The coding manual is attached (appendix 2, p. 167 ff.).

71

8.3.2.5 Analysis of the Attitudes towards Science and the Academic Selfconcept

Following the evaluation of the PISA items by the OECD, I processed the variables JOYSCI (enjoyment of science), GENSCI (general value of science), SCIACT (science activities) and INTSCI (interest in science learning) (OECD, 2009). I inverted the scale and calculated the arithmetic mean using the program IBM SPSS. The inverting of the scale had the purpose of a more intuitive interpretation of the results. So the higher the values are, the higher the enjoyment or value in science for example. The questionnaire has a four-stage scale, therefore the highest possible value was four, the lowest was one. As my investigation took place in one school class, the values are not comparable to the large scale PISA results. For this reason replicated weights were not used. The quantitative measures are reasonable for the description of the class as the class average is shown. But to describe groups and, later on, individual students within the class, the qualitative view of this questionnaire as well as the individual questions seems more worthwhile. The academic self-concept was processed in the same way as the attitude items by inverting the scale and calculating the arithmetic mean. These questions were answered on a five-stage scale, the highest possible value for the academic selfconcept was five, and the lowest value was one. 22 students filled in the questionnaire but some students skipped some individual items within the questionnaire. The variables were not calculated for those students who skipped the items. The variables JOYSCI and academic selfconcept were filled in by all of the students. The questions about the general value and science activities were answered by 21 students and only 19 students answered the questions concerning their interest in science completely. 17 students answered the questions for all variables in their entirety.

72

9 Background Information about the Class In this study, the class is the field where the research takes place as well as subject of investigation. This chapter describes the class in great detail as it is the basis for the thesis and affects all three research questions about the implementation, scaffolding, and the views about scientific inquiry. First, the diversity of the class is described followed by a characterization of the class. Subsequently, the results of the questionnaires about “attitudes towards science” and “academic self-concept”, as well as the results of the IQ test are presented. .

9.1

Diversity of the Class

The students in this class are highly diverse. To give an impression of this diversity, the composition of the class regarding their first languages, their educational backgrounds, and their ages is described. 9.1.1 Language

14 first languages were represented within the class at the beginning of the school year with according to the class register. These were (in alphabetical order; the number of students is written in brackets) Armenian (1), Bosnian (1), Chechen (1), Croatian (2), German (4), Kurdish (1), Persian (2), Polish (1), Punjabi (2), Rumanian (2), Russian (1), Serbian (10), Serbo-Croatian (1), and Turkish (2). So, 14 students have a first language that belongs to the SerboCroatian group which includes: Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian and Serbo-Croatian. Only four students have German (the language of instruction) as a first language. Though the official language in Austria is German, it is a slightly different German from that which is used in Germany. The 14 students who share a language in the Serbo-Croatian group had the benefit that they were able to use their first language to support their communication within the groups. When I was listening to the audio tapes it became apparent that the students were using both the language of instruction as well as their first languages. So I collaborated with a Bosnian native speaker linguist to discuss the transcripts concerning interesting conspicuities (Puddu, Koliander, & Lembens, 2012). One example of a task shall illustrate the communication. A group of girls sitting in the first row, Dana 7, Lija, and Melina (who will be introduced later in greater detail) were working on a task on paperchromatography. For this task the students got a part of a forged check and three 7

All names used in the thesis are pseudonyms. 73

felt-tip pens. The students had to find out which felt-tip pen was used to forge the check. The task sheet is shown below (Figure 15).

Figure 15: Task sheet “Who has forged this check?”

The conspicuities are described in the following passage. All quotes are translated from the first language of the students into English. The words original used in German are written in bold. The students were switching languages to make prompts. These prompts often were shorter than in German. Contrary to their German-speaking counterparts they were often just one word. One example would be: Student: “Take care not to cut yourself!”8

8

The sample sentences have already been published (Puddu, Koliander, et al., 2012, p. 197) 74

Some short regulating phrases were spoken in the first language, probably because of the familiarity of the students with these expressions in their first language. Here are two examples: Student: “That’s the topic.” Student: “What do we have to do?” Sometimes the students switched between the languages in the same sentence. One example here would be: Student: “Do you think something will change?” Again, the words in bold were originally spoken in German, the words in italics were spoken in the first language of the students. The students habitually used expletives in the conversations. These were not intended to offend the colleagues but to regulate or to uphold the flow of the conversations. The swear words were also used as a synonym for the word “thing”. Here are two examples: Student: “Give me all penis you can find here.” Students: “The fuck is multicolored.” (Puddu, Koliander, et al., 2012, p. 197) These examples are meant to give an impression of the discussions happening during the laboratory work. In the following chapter, the next diversity dimension “the educational background” in this class is described. 9.1.2 Educational Background

The educational backgrounds of the students are also quite diverse. The business school is a “new beginning” for many students. Five students attended classes in their home countries and entered the Austrian school system later in their educational career. Some tried “academic secondary schools” or “colleges for higher vocational training” for one year but failed. Many students had to repeat certain classes. (The school system in Austria requires a repetition of a whole grade if a student fails more than two subjects during the school year.) Only ten out of the 31 students of the class had a direct educational route into the business school without experiences of failure. In the Austrian educational system, the direct route would be four years of primary school and four years of “new secondary school” or “academic secondary school lower level”. The detours the students took are reflected in the diversity dimension “age” (see below).

75

9.1.3 Age

As a result of the different paths and school careers described in the previous paragraph, the distribution of ages is wide. As you can see in Figure 16, the youngest student was 13 years and 11 months old and the oldest turned 17 at the beginning of the school year (in the graph the age is displayed as years;months e.g. 15;3 means that the student is 15 years and 3 months old). The age difference between the youngest and the oldest student spans 3 years and 1 month.

Figure 16: Age distribution of the class at the beginning of the school year [year;month]

As a consequence, the developmental stage and the needs of the students differ. Furthermore, the level of frustration is noticeably high in this class because of the previous school careers of some of the students and is mirrored in the characterization of the class. Teacher’s considerations regarding age The following assessment, already published (Puddu & Koliander, 2013), of the interaction between the teacher and the students was made in accordance with the teacher by the author. The teacher in this study was mindful of the differences in the ages of the students. She did not differentiate the design of the lessons as she assumed that the inquiry-based learning tasks were appropriate for all age groups and developmental stages. This impression was supported by the written feedback of the students that the teacher obtained at the end of the school year. Nearly every student expressed a positive attitude towards the tasks even if there was no question concerning the tasks in the open feedback questionnaire. Instead, the diversity regarding the ages of the students is 76

considered in the attention the students received and the responsibility delegated for their own learning processes. Older students received shorter feedback concerning developmental and educational goals than younger students yet, for the teacher, these goals were more important than goals in the area of behavior (Puddu & Koliander, 2013, p. 29 f). 9.2

Characterization of the Class

According to the ideas of special needs education: “it is first and foremost important to diagnose the individual pre-conditions of students and their socioenvironment to differentiate teaching accordingly” (Watkins, 2007 in Abels, 2015a, p. 7). To get an impression of the class situation, a description of the learning group was made. It was written at the end of the first semester and updated at the end of the school year by the author. The revisions are clearly labeled. Parts of the class description have already been published (Abels & Puddu, 2014). a) Information about the learning group and prerequisites The class consists of 25 students: 9 male, 16 female, between 14 and 17 years of age. 6 students left the school because of personal reasons (1 because of illness) or problems at school (5 students - Anna left school by choice, Peter didn’t come to school any more, Ufuk and Rajna had many bad grades and left school upon the advice of their head teacher, Daiana S.: reason is unknown). Dajana T. left school in May because of impending bad grades. (Addition at the end of the school year.) A majority of the students come from a low socioeconomic background. b) Linguistic prerequisites There are 14 different first languages which are actively used within the class. The majority of the students (all except 4) have a migration background. Some students chose the subject BKS (Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian) as their second foreign language (French or Italian also would have been possible) to further their native-language skills. From observations of the classes and class discussions it is obvious that some students have problems expressing themselves in the language of education (German) both written and orally. Of those students, there are some who do not have sufficient competences in their first language (Hayarpi, Anica and Arda). A few students have excellent competences in their first language like Goran, Birsen and Milana. During the group work on the tasks the students tend to switch between the language of 77

education and their first languages. In school there is a rule about using only German as a working language. c) Learning and performance behavior There is a fickle class climate depending on the mood of the day. The students are mostly motivated as long as they don’t feel overwhelmed or inattentive because of their form of the day so they can not follow class. The performance level, the commitment, as well as the working speed of the students are highly diverse. d) Emotional and social behavior between groups There are repeatedly disputes within the class which affect the lessons, classroom disturbances occurred. They are demonstrated by unease, refusal to work, gossiping, and listening to music during the lessons. Because the lessons take place after the lunch break the students are often tired, inattentive, and have difficulties calming down. Agreements between teacher and students are going to be broken quite often. Because the students were allowed to go home when the day’s work was done in the first few lessons (most of the time after 120 minutes) they demanded it in the following lessons. A consequence was that the tasks were executed quickly but not accurately. Now the students have to stay all three school periods. The whole class meets just a few hours a week. The rest of the time they are separated into two groups. The students within these groups know each other better and are closer. Some subgroups are established, e.g. the Islamic female students. Boys and girls sit separately in class except for one girl who sits with the boys starting from halfway through the school year. Goran and Radan are good friends and contrarily gifted. Goran supports Radan in school matters. Alina separats herself from class; she often does not attend the laboratory lessons. She only joins a group upon request. e) Prerequisites concerning the subject Because of the different school careers of the students, the learning prerequisites are highly diverse. The established rules (it is forbidden to eat or to drink in the laboratory, rules about conducting an experiment, e.g. wearing safety goggles) are barely complied by the male students. 78

Due to either a lack of attentiveness and reading competences or a refusal to read, the tasks are often not understood. The teacher gives a description of the tasks orally to those students at their tables. It is difficult for the students to form hypotheses and to plan experiments. The students can conduct experiments but drawing conclusions is difficult for them. The writing of the lab journal succeeds correspondingly according to the linguistic prerequisites of the students. The usage of theoretical knowledge during practical work is a challenge for many students (e.g. density, mass, usage of models).

In the last two chapters about the diversity of the class and the characterization of the class, I intend to introduce the persons in the class and to give a first impression. In the following chapter, other viewpoints are going to be adapted and added. Because one goal of this thesis is to paint an overall picture as accurately as possible. The next angle from which to view the class is the analysis of the questionnaires. 9.3

The Class through the Lens of Questionnaires and Numbers

In this chapter a more distant viewpoint is adopted. During the school year, in addition to the VOSI questionnaire, two questionnaires were filled in by the students. In mid-December, a questionnaire was administered containing questions about demographic data, attitudes towards science, and the academic self-concept. The students needed approximately 20 minutes to fill in the questionnaire. In March, the students did an intelligence test CFT 20-R. The results of these questionnaires are shown in the following chapters. 9.3.1 Attitudes towards Science and Subject-related Self-concept

The questionnaire was analyzed by inverting the scale and using the arithmetic mean, described in chapter 8.3.1.2. The calculated values are shown in Table 5.

79

Variable

Arithmetic mean 9 Enjoyment of science (JOYSCI) 2.61 General value of science (GENSCI) 2.87 Science activities (SCIACT) 1.70 Interest in science (INTSCI) 2.47 Interest in chemistry laboratory 2.48 (INTLAB) Subject related self-concept 3.60

Number students 22 21 21 19 21

of

22

Table 5: Results of the items regarding “attitudes towards science” (OECD, 2005) and “subject related self-concept” (Dickhäuser et al., 2002)

The students in this class were undecided regarding the “enjoyment of science” (JOYSCI), they neither agreed nor disagreed with an arithmetic mean of 2.61. The items “I generally have fun when I am learning science topics”, “I am happy doing science problems” or “I am interested in learning about science”, were mainly answered in the middle of the scale with rather agree or rather disagree. The answers about the “general value of science” (GENSCI) were a little more positive with an arithmetic mean of 2.87. The item within this variable which was seen as most agreeable by the students was “science is important for helping us to understand the natural world”, with a median of 3. In contrast, the item most disagreeable with a median of 1 was “advances in science and technology usually help improve the economy”. The involvement in activities related to science (SCIACT) is very poor within this class with an arithmetic mean of 1.70. The students “watch TV programs” or “read magazines or articles in newspapers about science” sometimes (median of 2). All other activities mentioned in the questionnaire like “borrow or buy books”, “visit web-sites” or “listen to radio programs” they never or hardly ever do (median of 1). The variable “interest in science” (INTSCI) has an arithmetic mean of 2.47. The students show medium interest in human biology with a median of 3, (𝑥̅ = 1.95) and low interest, with a median of 2, in geology (𝑥̅ = 2.73). All other items are located somewhere in between. Within this scale there are three items which I consider important for the work in a chemistry laboratory lesson. The 9

For the variables JOYSCI, GENSCI, SCIACT and INTSCI four is the highest and most positive value to reach; one is the lowest value. The academic self-concept works with a fivestage scale, the most positive value is five, the lowest value is one. 80

item “interest in chemistry” has an arithmetic mean of 2.55. The items “ways scientists design experiments” with a mean of 2.64 (median 2.5) and “what is required for scientific explanations” with a mean of 2.33 (median 2) shows a medium interest in topics covered in the chemistry laboratory lessons. The academic self-concept, with an arithmetic mean of 3.60 (within a five-stage scale), shows a quite positive attitude towards learning chemistry. Separated according to gender, no significant difference was found (𝑥̅𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 = 3.77, 𝑥̅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 3.23). But when we take a closer look there is a larger distribution within the females. There are seven girls with a mean between 4.00 and 5.00 and one girl with a mean of 1.2. In comparison, the male students have a lower subject related self-concept than the female students. The mean values span from 2.4 to 4.0 with four of the seven boys between 2.4 and 3.2.

Figure 17: subject related self-concept of male and female students

9.3.2 Analysis of the CFT-20R Test

The intelligence quotient (IQ) test CFT-20R (Weiß, 2006) was taken by the class in March. Figure 18 shows the results of the IQ test. The result was adjusted to the ages of the students as described in chapter 8.3.1.3.

81

Figure 18: Students’ IQ test results

Because of the circumstances of how the test was conducted (because of the unease of the students and the necessary adaptions on the part of the researcher, see chapter 8.3.1.3), the numbers should not be taken too seriously. But my impression is that every student did the best he or she was able to. 12 out of 18 students reached a score of less than 100. After an insight into the attitudes towards science and learning chemistry, as well as the IQ test results, the detailed consideration of the whole class was completed. The next step is to take a look at the lessons the teacher provided

82

10 Insights into the Laboratory Lessons The following chapter starts with an overview of the tasks the students faced during the school year (in chronological order). Afterwards, the lessons were analyzed regarding the implementation of the lessons during the school year. 10.1 Overview of the Tasks In the following section, the realization of the lessons is described. The aim of the laboratory lessons was to successively introduce the students to inquirybased learning. An overview of the experiments and their levels during the school year can be seen in Table 6. So at the beginning, the tasks were inquiry level 0 and inquiry level 1. Starting at the end of November, level 2 inquiry tasks were introduced. Therefore, a simple inquiry circle (see Figure 1) was shown to illustrate the new requirements. Afterwards, the tasks varied depending on the other difficulties the students had to face like new content or unfamiliar equipment. At the end of April, the students had the chance to develop their own questions during a coupled inquiry. The four phases the lessons underwent during the school year are described in chapter 10.2.

Number of the lesson. 1 2

3

Date

Task

September 19, 2011 October 10, 2011

Analysis of colorants – felt-tip pens

0

Analysis of colorants – M&M’s® What has a higher mass? Make predictions. Gilding of a cent coin Density of air Density of water What material do cent coins consists of? – identify them using their density Does an ice cube melt or dissolve in water? – a thought experiment Dissolving of potassium permanganate, Melting of chocolate Does the mass of table salt and water remain the same after mixing them?

1 1

November 7, 2011

Level

83

0 0 0 1 1 0 1

4

5

6

7

8 9

November 28, 2011

December 19, 2011

January 23, 2012

February 20, 2012

March 19, 2012 April 30, 2012

After dissolving table salt – Is it possible to separate it? Who forged the check? (paper chromatography) How can you differentiate between deionized water and salt water? – planning of the experiment Make a small light shine. Construct an open circuit Resumption of the experiment “How can you differentiate between faucet water and salt water? (continued) Substances – chemical bonds and conductivity Introduction of acid-base indicators Which colors can the universal indicator show along the pH scale? Plan and conduct an experiment (no analysis) The pH value of the intestinal tract of the daphnia Chemical reactions – mix two substances at a time. Does a reaction take place or not? Rusting of iron – Take the steel wool to a place where you think it will rust best Rusting of iron – collecting of the results (continued) Which colorants are qualified as being acid-base indicators? Does the mass changes during a chemical reaction? Electrolysis of a sodium chloride solution Trip to the museum Thought experiment – an experiment is described, the result is named. Discussion about data and evidence Students can choose between different simple experiments: 84

1 2 2 2 0 (2) 1 0 2

1 1 2 (2) 2 1 1 1

10

May 21, 2012

11

June 11, 2012

Making of lip gloss Production of a device for making oxyhydrogen (detonating gas) Dust explosion Development of a question within one topic of the lab Conducting of the inquiry Differentiation between sodium chloride, sugar and citric acid

0

couple d couple d 2

Table 6: Overview of the tasks during the school year.

10.2 Four Phases To visualize the development of inquiry-based learning in the class, the following figure shows the relationship between the number of the task and its level of inquiry. It shows that the school year can be divided roughly into four phases. The phases are described subsequently.

Figure 19: The four phases during the school year.

85

10.2.1

Phase 1: Introduction

Phase 1 is the introduction phase where the students first came into contact with many new things. The students got to know a new school, new classmates, and a new teacher. Additionally, they experienced a new subject, namely, chemistry laboratory with a special way of working and a special set of rules: like no eating and drinking in class, how to handle the equipment and the chemicals, and various safety procedures. So in this phase, the successive introduction of inquiry-based learning starts with level 0 and level 1. To illustrate the different goals I would like to introduce two examples. The first example was a paper chromatography with felt-tip pens of different colors. The aims of the task were to introduce the equipment used and to learn how to write a lab report. As a consequence, the task was designed exactly like the desired lab report. The scaffolding of the teacher is discussed later in the thesis (chapter 11). To reduce complexity, the task was level 0 which means the question, data collection method and the interpretation of the results were all given by the teacher. The second example concerns the goal “to learn content” (Abrams et al., 2008). The main topic of one laboratory lesson was to differentiate between melting and dissolving (Puddu & Koliander, 2013). During the regular chemistry lesson, it became obvious that the students mixed the two words up or that they used them synonymously. So the class got the chance to work on the concepts via different level 0 and level 1 tasks. 10.2.2

Phase 2: Further Opening

Phase 2 offered the students a further opening of the inquiry task. Therefore, a simple inquiry cycle was introduced by the teacher to show which parts were now open to the students and which parts were still the responsibility of the teacher. The new requirements were discussed and applied in three tasks. For the introduction of the new step, to be responsible for the methods used for the investigation, the teacher chose a familiar topic to reduce complexity. So the students had the possibility to plan an investigation at the end of November (Inquiry level 2). Using the simple inquiry cycle the students were already familiar with from their regular chemistry lessons, she described which steps had been open to the students up to now and which steps were being opened for the first time. She said: “I have given you the question to answer, which methods you had to use and how you had to do it. You conducted the 86

experiment and you interpreted it. Today we will open the process one step further.” [V2;20111128 -19:40] One example for a phase 2 task is the differentiation between salt water and deionized water. Here the students designed experiments to differentiate between the two types of water. They had to write down how they wanted to find out about the water and which materials they would need. The planning was done during the second part of one laboratory lesson. The actual conducting of the experiment happened in the next lesson. So the teacher had time to gather the materials the students needed. Eight groups designed an experiment in which they vaporized the water. Two groups had other ideas: One group focused on the differences in the density and one group wanted to differentiate between the two types of water by adding Coke®. They expected to detect salt water by the speed of the escaping of carbon dioxide. These experiments are going to be described in greater detail later on in the thesis. 10.2.3

Phase 3: Application

At this point, the foundation for a flexible using of inquiry-based learning was laid according to the desired goals. Like mentioned before, to introduce a new topic or a new technique, the teacher used an inquiry-level 0 or level 1 task and increased the level with the increasing knowledge of the students. One example was the introduction to conductivity. After the level 2 task “Make a small light shine”, which served as a review of electric circuits (previously learned in physics), she used a level 0 task to introduce the class to electric circuits for conductivity measurements. To assess whether or not the circuit worked the students tested copper and distilled water. The main task on level 1 was to make a connection between the types of chemical bonds and conductivity. The students received different substances like solid copper sulfate and dissolved copper sulfate, sugar, magnesium, etc. Again the teacher used low levels of inquiry to introduce new content and new concepts, and higher levels of inquiry for revision of previously learned content to focus on the planning of the experiment. 10.2.4

Phase 4: Asking Questions

At the end of the school year, the teacher wanted to offer the students the chance to pursue their own questions. Therefore, the teacher used the simple inquiry cycle again to show which steps were going to be open to the students. The teacher also discussed how to phrase a question. For their first contact with this 87

new responsiblility the teacher chose a coupled inquiry. So, based on simple experiments (level 0) the students conducted, they were asked to develop their own question within these topics. This was a difficult but seemingly rewarding task for the students to do because an increased enthusiasm for their work was palpable. 10.2.5

The Stepwise Introduction

The visualization of the four phases in Figure 19 might indicate a very long phase 1 and also quite a long phase 3. In fact, inquiry level 0 tasks were done faster than level 2 activities. Figure 20 is provided to take a closer look at the actual duration of the phases. It shows the relationship between the number of the lessons and the respective phase. If the transition from one phase to another phase happened during the lesson, the next phase is plotted in the figure.

Figure 20: The duration of the phases. (Relationship between the number of lessons and the phase.)

This form of representation shows a stepwise development of the phases where the most time was used for the introduction (phase 1) and for phase 4. 11 The Scaffolding by the Teacher Up to this point in the thesis, the class has been introduced and the successive introduction of inquiry-based learning has been described. The next interesting

88

focus is how the teacher scaffolded the inquiry-based learning lessons. So in the following part, the macro as well as the micro-scaffolding is described. To get a deep insight into the scaffolding of the teacher, the task sheets, the lab reports, the video and audio recordings as well as the observation protocols were analyzed. The inductive analysis produced four main categories: “Language”, “To do inquiry”, “Learning about inquiry”, and “Content learning” as shown in Figure 21.

Figure 21: Categories of scaffolding

These four main categories are going to be described in the following chapters beginning with the first main category “Language”. 11.1 Scaffolding of Language The first big part of scaffolding concerns language. A vast majority of the students did not speak the language of instruction as a first language. Therefore, the teacher took that into account in the task sheets as well as during the lessons. This guidance of language was independent of the level of inquiry.

Figure 22: Categories of scaffolding, main category “Language” with its sub-categories is highlighted [translated by the author] (Puddu & Lembens, 2015, p. 86)

89

The category “Language” contains the three sub-categories: “Task sheets”, Inquiry process”, and “Lab report” (see Figure 22). This is also the order in which the results are going to be presented.

11.1.1

Language Aids in the Task Sheets

The task sheets are part of the macro-scaffolding. In the sub-category “task sheets” three methods of scaffolding are present: • Visualizations • Sentence structure and length of the sentences • Keywords, outlines In the following section these three methods are described and expanded upon with examples. The first sub-category is called “Visualizations”. The task sheets were the first contact with the task. Mostly, they were a combination of text and pictures. It seems that the pictures had two purposes. First, the pictures helped to learn the vocabulary for the equipment being used. Second, they demonstrated the experiment. One example in which both purposes were combined was an experiment with colorants of candy coatings through paper chromatography. The first picture showed a beaker with filtering paper on top. A piece of candy (M&M’s®) was positioned on the middle of this filtering paper. The object and the corresponding terms were combined.

Figure 23: Experiment “Analysis of colorants” (TS20111010)

90

The second picture shows the action. The students have to pipette water and drop it onto the candy.

Figure 24: Experiment “Analysis of colorants” ctd. (TS20111010)

“Sentence structure and length of the sentences” is the second sub-category. For the most part, the sentence structure was easy, using subject-predicate. The sentences were written mostly in the active voice. The following example is also from the task: “Analysis of colorants – M&M’s®”. Lay the filtering paper onto the beaker. Put the candy in the middle of the filtering paper. (TS10111010) The teacher also used affirmative imperative sentences. Here is an example from the task “Analysis of colorants – felt-tip pens”. Make a dot with each felt-tip pen. (TS20110919) The last sub-category is called “keywords, outline”. The teacher used keywords like “leading question” or “topic”. The keywords helped the students to orientate themselves within the task sheet. Additionally, paragraphs and bulleted lists also helped the students. One example is the experiment “Properties of substances” (TS20111128). 1. Start with the report: Topic: pure water – salt water Leading question: How can you distinguish between water and salt water without tasting? 2. Write down your assumption. 91

3. Carefully consider how you want to conduct the experiment. Describe what you want to do in the lab report section “Procedure” 4. Hand in the lab report with your assumption and your planned procedure. 11.1.2

Language Aids during the Inquiry Process

During the inquiry process, the teacher supported the students with understanding and using the language. That support included the explanation of the tasks regarding the language, which means the words used, the differentiation and pronunciation of words. The various ways of support can be condensed into three points: • Oral explanation of the task • Mentioning of terms • Explanation of words The first point “oral explanation of the task” is illustrated by the following example. The following task was unique as it was the only task which was not presented in written form. The teacher phrased the task to the whole class first: Teacher: “You get a dye. This is not a normal dye; this is an indicator, an acidbase indicator. An acid-base indicator can take various colors, depending on whether it is added to an acid or a base. Your task is now to divide a small quantity of the indicator into two of these containers. Then you should drip some acid into the one container; drip some base into the other container. Now the indicator should have two different colors.” Afterwards the teacher went to the individual groups to see if they had understood the task, and explained the task again, if necessary. Here the explanation to one group: Teacher: You have to divide this solution into two containers. And then into one container […] a few drops of this and into the other one a few drops of that and they should have two different colors. (B_20120123_126-133) The second point is “terms”. The teacher made the connection between the word and the device or the equipment orally. As an added benefit, the students heard the pronunciation of the terms. In the following example the teacher showed a dropping bottle and accompanied it with the correct term. Teacher: These are little dropping bottles. (20120123_B_03:30) The third point “explanation of words” involved the explanation of difficult or unfamiliar words like brittle or apparatus. 92

Teacher: OK. Who knows the term brittle? (the teacher calls on Dana to answer the question) Dana: For example hair can be brittle when they… they go apart… Someone calls out crumbly. Teacher: Crumbly. What can that mean? What can you name other than hair that can be brittle or crumbly? (Teacher waits briefly) What is brittle? (Class discusses loudly then the teacher calls on Rosanda) Rosanda: Glass Teacher: Glass. Yes. Brittle means I hit it and it shatters into pieces. (20111219_li_R1_nP 1:07:25) Another example for the sub-category “explanation of words” concerns the differentiation between heavy and difficult. In the German language the word heavy (German: schwer) can be used as a synonym for difficult (German: schwierig) but not vice versa. In a lab report a few students wrote sentences like the following: Lab report by Arda, Anna, Ufuk, and Amar: The syringe is difficult with the water. (P20111010) Because of those lab reports the teacher explained the difference between the words and how they should be used via sample sentences. 11.1.3

Language Aids for Writing a Lab Report

Writing a lab report was not easy for the students. Like most things, writing a lab report needs practice. Aids can be given in the task sheets as well as during conversation. The following points were observed: • • • •

Guiding questions Sample charts Sample sentences Read aloud.

The blank version of the lab report itself (see Figure 25) provides “guiding questions”. One of these guiding questions is e.g. “What do we expect?” to make clear what the word assumption means.

93

Figure 25: Blank lab report [translated by the author]

In the first laboratory lesson the teacher worked on completing the lab report. After discussing the blank lab report the task sheet for the experiment “Analysis of colorants” was provided (Figure 26). In this task sheet the connections to the blank lab report were made obvious. An example would be at point three in the task sheet “Afterwards write […] under the word ‘observations’ the word color […]”.

94

Figure 26: Task sheet “analysis of colorants – felt-tip pen” [translated by the author]

The sub-category “sample charts” includes the tables the teacher gave as an example so they could be used in the lab reports to organize the findings. One example is shown in Figure 27 where two substances at a time should be mixed and the observations had to be written down systematically.

95

Figure 27: Sample chart (TS20120123_chemical_reactions)

Since the writing was not easy for the majority of the students, help was also provided (sub-category “sample sentences”). The last part of the task sheet was: “Write into your lab report one of the following sentences with an explanation: The sodium chloride solution is as heavy as the sodium chloride plus water, because…. The sodium chloride solution is heavier than the sodium chloride plus water, because…. The sodium chloride solution is lighter than the sodium chloride plus water, because….” (TS20111107_dissolving of substances) (Puddu & Koliander, 2013, p. 29) In this case the students had to decide which of the sample sentences was true and to justify their decisions. The last sub-category is called “read aloud” since the teacher let the students read the sentences they phrased for the lab report in order to help the students to rephrase them if necessary. Teacher: Can you rephrase that into a question? Kimi: Which colors Teacher: Yes…(waiting for Kimi to continue) Kimi: …can the universal indicator take on in acidic and in alkaline solutions? Teacher: Yes. (20120123_B_28:01)

96

11.2 Scaffolding of “Doing Inquiry” In the main category “scaffolding of doing inquiry” the analysis revealed that the scaffolding differs with the level of inquiry used for the task (Figure 28). So in the following part, the different ways the teacher scaffolded the process of inquiry-based learning observed in this research project are described starting with level 0 inquiry.

Figure 28: Categories of scaffolding, main category “to do inquiry” with its subcategories is highlighted

11.2.1

Level 0

At this level three sub-categories emerged from the data. These are: • comprehend and carry out the tasks • explain equipment • pay attention and praise. At the beginning of the process it was important for the teacher that the students understand what they have to do. So the teacher explained the task and let the students repeat. Here is an example for the sub-category “comprehend and carry out the tasks”: Teacher: Do you understand what to do? (Referring to the task acid-base indicator, see chapter 11.1.2.) Student: No Teacher: You have to divide this amount of indicator into two containers. Yes, drip it in here and here. (Teacher shows the micro-well plate.) And then into the one container a little bit of acid and into the other container a little bit of base and it should show two different colors. […] 97

Student: So I put a little bit here, a little bit there, then a little bit here, a little bit there. Teacher: Yes (20120123_B_1 7:43) The teacher used inquiry level 0 experiments to introduce new equipment or new procedures to the students (sub-category “explain equipment” This category is distinguished from the sub-category “mentioning of terms” (main category “language”; see chapter 11.1.2) since the handling and mechanics of the equipment is emphasized instead of the naming. One example would be: Teacher: This is a dropping bottle. You hold that upside down and squeeze it until it drips. (20120123_B_1 9:20) The third sub-category “pay attention and praise” is about showing appreciation for the endeavor and the effort as a way to motivate students. One example was the task where the students should create a pH-scale with a universal indicator. Here, the students had to create as many colors as possible: T: Now you did it beautifully, really beautifully. (20120123_B_1 15:33) The teacher even took photographs of the results. 11.2.2

Level 1

During inquiry level 1 tasks the interpretation of the results is open to the students. So there were a few new things for the students to learn. The questions the students had to tackle were: “How do I have to write my results down so I am able to use them afterwards? How do I have to handle the results to reach appropriate conclusions?” So the micro-scaffolding reacted to these questions. The subcategories were: • • • •

Focus / organizing thoughts Pay attention Confirm and mirror Activate prior knowledge

During the process the students sometimes lost the overall view of the task. The teacher helped the students to refocus by reminding the students e.g. of the goal of the task so a valid interpretation was possible (sub-category “focus / organizing thoughts”). One example would be the identifying of the material the 2 cent coins (see task sheet Figure 9) consist of by using the density as a property of the material. Teacher: “That’s right but the task goes on, isn’t that so? The question is, which material are the 2 cent coins made of.” (T20111107Reihe1li_Teil1 539) 98

Sometimes the students just needed a little reactivation. So the teacher in my study “pays attention” (sub-category) to the work of the students e.g. by saying: “Right, how are you?” (20111107Reihe1li-Teil1 5:28) By simply asking about their feelings and condition the students “spilled the beans” about their difficulties with the task. The third sub-category “confirm and mirror” is about paraphrasing what was said and acknowledging the results collected. The teacher helped the students to think and to continue successfully with their tasks by mirroring. The following example is again taken from the task “What material do cent coins consist of?” (see Figure 9). Dana: So the coins also have a, a, a, a thing… Lija: A volume. Dana: A volume. Ok and… Lija: Because of that the water rises. Dana: ...that, if you add, then it rises because it is displaced, the water up. And therefore it rises. Is that correct? Teacher: That is true for the measurement of the volume, yes. And the density, for the density you need the volume and the mass. Lija: And together it is the density Dana: Oh, ok. (20111107Reihe1liT1 479-495) This example shows a combination of two sub-categories. At first the teacher confirmed that the water level rises (sub-category “confirm and mirror”) and focusses on what is needed for subsequently calculating the density (subcategory “focus – organizing thoughts”). The last sub-category within level 1 tasks is “activate prior knowledge”. The teacher reminded the class which knowledge the students should draw on to master the task at hand. One example would be (see again Figure 9): Teacher: You all know what you have to measure if you want to calculate the density. (20111107_R1li_T1 5:28) With this statement the teacher was referring to the equation that the students had previously learned, to calculate the density. So at level 1, the focus of the scaffolding was shifted towards organizing the process and understanding in order to master the new responsibility of the 99

students to analyze the results they were gathering. So the next level can further shift the responsibilities. 11.2.3

Level 2

At level 2 the responsibilities of the students were increased again. At this stage they had to find a suitable method for their investigation and to plan the investigation accordingly. So again the micro-scaffolding of the teacher was shifted to accompany the needs of the students. The sub-categories are: • • • • •

Understanding the task Requesting a hypothesis Planning the investigation Conducting the investigation Results, interpretation of the results

In the first sub-category “understanding the task” the teacher helped the students to understand the task by asking them if they knew what to do and by clarifying the problem the students had to investigate. Teacher: First read the task, what you have to do…(waits until the student raises his eyes again)….Do you understand what you just read? (20120123_B_1 19:37) This sub-category has a different quality than the category “comprehend and carry out the task” at level 0 because here the students had to understand the question within the given topic to plan accordingly, whereas at level 0 the focus was more on carrying out the task. The sub-category “requesting a hypothesis” is the result of the desire of the teacher that the students express their expectations prior to planning. This was a central point in the lab report (cp. Figure 25) and also in the tasks (e.g. “What has a higher mass” Figure 10 or “Who has forged this check?” Figure 15). The next sub-category “planning the investigation” is about specifying the investigation. The teacher examined the plan and asked questions in order to help develop the plan further. It was about clarifying what the next goal was and figuring out the necessary steps towards that goal. One example would be the task “Which colorants are qualified as being acid-base indicators?”. The students are given different colorants and have to plan an investigation which colorants are suitable as indicators and which are not suitable. Teacher: How do you do that exactly? 100

Melina: I give both into it… then blue into it…I watch until something changes. Teacher: What do you mean by “give both into it”? Melina: The one into this, the other into that. (20120220_B_27:26) That sub-category also encompasses the approval of the plan for the investigation. During level 2 experiments, the students sometimes need chemicals or equipment the teacher has not yet prepared. So the teacher needs time to arrange everything. In some cases, the teacher let the students plan during one laboratory lesson, so the plan could be carried out properly in the following lesson. One example would be the distinguishing of deionized water and salt water. The lab report of the students as well as the approval of the teacher is shown here: Question: How can you distinguish between water and saltwater without tasting them? Assumption (what do we expect?): In the glass with saltwater the water is going to fizz vigorously and also loudly and for long time after adding Coke®, maybe. Procedure: We will take one glass of Coke® and pour it into the two cups with water and saltwater. Teacher: Very creative! Good idea, I am already curious if it works! (LR20111128_Ivana) Only after completing the lab report to the extent deemed possible, and handing it in, did the teacher prepare and provide whatever was necessary (within the realm of possibility). So the students got back the lab report in the next laboratory lesson and were asked to carry out the task. The next scaffolding step is the sub-category “conducting the investigation” where the teacher asked questions to keep the students on track. So she wanted them to focus on what to do now and what to do next. Teacher: What are you doing right now? (20120123_B 23:22) The last sub-category is called “results, interpretation of the results”. Here the teacher asked questions about the results and the conclusions. Teacher: Which results did you get? (20120220_B 6:19) As there was only one task where the students were able to create their own question in the course of a coupled inquiry, there was not enough data to analyze the scaffolding. So inquiry level 2 is the highest in the analysis.

101

11.3 Scaffolding of “Learning about Inquiry” Lukas: “[…], that doesn’t make sense, gosh! “ (20120521_B_55:41) That sentence was spoken after a series of measurements with a Geiger counter where the measured values were contradictory. Plenty of occasions arise within a school year where a discussion about inquiry is possible, appropriate or even necessary to avoid frustration within a group.

Figure 29 Categories of scaffolding, main category “learning about inquiry”

The teacher in my study talked quite regularly about inquiry. In the following section the sub-categories of scaffolding in “learning about inquiry” (Figure 29) are described and discussed. These are: • • • •

Inquiry cycle Hypotheses Sources of error Wrong answers and unexpected results

The teacher repeatedly explained how an investigation can be framed, either as a whole or in parts (sub-category “Inquiry Cycle”). During one regular chemistry lesson in between the laboratory lessons, the teacher discussed the steps of the scientific method, like asking questions, making predictions, observing, etc,. by referencing to a simple inquiry cycle. In the following laboratory lesson she showed the simple inquiry cycle again. Teacher: “Take a look at [the inquiry cycle], we are here. You have to plan first and conduct afterwards.” (20120220_B 25:30) An important objective of the teacher is the importance of phrasing expectations (sub-category “hypothesis”). So the next explicit goal of the teacher was learning to make predictions and build assumptions. During each task she asked students about their predictions and asked for the rationales behind them. Also in the lab report there was a separate point: “assumption (what do we expect)”, which the students had to fill out prior to conducting the experiment. 102

The next sub-category “sources of error” includes e.g. misapplied equipment or an incorrect conclusion. E.g. during the task “Who has forged the check?” one group was not able to find out which felt-tip pen was used. While the group was discussing their misleading paper chromatograms, the teacher intervened to help the group by saying: “It is possible that you did not keep the conditions constant.” (20111128_Reihe1_li_dict 44:18) The last sub-category “wrong answers and unexpected results” encompasses all occasions where the teacher stated that all results had to be protocolled no matter if they made sense at the moment or not, and that wrong results which are well-justified are also important. One time the teacher said: “It is important to write down whether it worked or not and if it didn’t work, write that down as well. It is equally important.” (20111219_li_Reihe1_nachPause 17:35) 11.4 Role of Content

Figure 30: Categories of scaffolding, main category “content learning”

The term “content in this case refers to the content mentioned in the three dimensional model of the Austrian Science Standards for colleges for higher vocational education (Figure 2). In this chapter, the two sub-categories of the category “science content” (Figure 30) are described. These are: • Content in the task sheets. • Content during the processes. An entire lesson is subsequently described in which the teacher addressed a problem about the concept of melting and dissolving. During that lesson both sub-categories were present. In some task sheets the content was provided (subcategory “content in the task sheets”) instead of just used for the task. In the task “chemical bonds and electric conductivity”, a text about the correlation of the type of bond and 103

conductivity was included. After working through the text, the students had to fill the information gathered into a table to sort out which substances can or cannot conduct electricity and in which state of matter. Only then were the students asked to conduct a level 1 experiment in which they had to use the freshly acquired knowledge. The second subcategory “content during the process” is about the content provided when the teacher talked to and with the students. One example happened while one student was not following the instructions and was not working on the task at hand but was kind of playing with acids and bases and mixing them. Teacher: (laughing, seemed surprised) “What did you do? What did you do just now?” Students: “I don’t know. I mixed it, I was bored.” Teacher: “Yes, you mixed, what did you mix?” Student: “Red with purple.” Teacher: “Red with purple, an acid with a base. If you mix an acid with a base you get something neutral and if you have too much acid in there you get something red and if you have too much base in there you get purple. They are antagonists quasi.” (20120123_B1 31:33) Instead of scolding the student for the inappropriate use of chemicals, the teacher chose to connect the result of the student’s experiment with the content (indicators, acids and bases) to help the student to understand the neutralization by chance. To round out the category “science content” I would like to highlight a previously published lesson on “melting and dissolving” (Puddu & Koliander, 2013).

104

Topic Melting or dissolving of an ice cube? Inquiry level 1 Melting of wax and chocolate, Dissolving of potassium permanganate. Inquiry level 0

Competency Observe and interpret Discuss and debate about choosing the appropriate term with the particle model in mind Carry out the instructions , observe and describe the changes

Formulate a hypothesis, find arguments for or against a change of mass on your own first Conservation of mass while Carry out the instructions, measure, interpret, dissolving table salt in water. discuss the results in the group: find arguments for or against a change of mass with regard to Inquiry level 1 the data Protocol the results Plan an experiment on your own first Properties of salt water and pure water. Plan and conduct an experiment in the group; Inquiry level 2 interpret and protocol the results.

Table 7: Overview about the lesson on melting and dissolving [translated by the author] (Puddu & Koliander, 2013, p. 27)

The teacher reported that the main reason for creating this lesson was the problem that the students used the terms “to dissolve” and “to melt” synonymously. To plunge into the topic they should observe, interpret, and discuss the phenomenon of melting an ice cube in water. This melting of an ice cube is a process students know from their everyday experience with soda. During the experiment the students were forced to write down and to rationalize their ideas Figure 31.

105

Figure 31: Task sheet: “Does an ice cube melt or dissolve in water” [translated by the author] (Puddu & Koliander, 2013, p. 28)

In this task sheet (Figure 31) the sub-category “content in the task sheet” is present. The explanation for melting is given and the students were asked to justify their observation on the basis of the explanation. While completing the task, the sub-category “content during the process” was also present in the micro-scaffolding of the teacher. 106

The second two-part task: “Melting of wax and chocolate” and “Dissolving of potassium permanganate” should make the phenomenon visible again. The level 0 inquiry was chosen to highlight the distinctive features of dissolving and melting. At first the students should observe how a potassium permanganate crystal dissolves in water. In the second part the students should observe the melting of wax and chocolate. In both tasks pictures were used for visualization.

Figure 32: Experiments: “Melting of chocolate” and “Dissolving of potassium permanganate” (Puddu & Koliander, 2013, p. 27)

Another problem was that many students thought that the substance was not there anymore after it dissolved. So the goal of the next task was to address this issue. In this task a well rationalized assumption about the result of the measurement before, as well as a well rationalized interpretation afterwards was demanded. The students should explore whether or not the mass changes before and after dissolving sodium chloride. To help the students understand this task the words were again supported by pictures (Figure 33).

Figure 33: Visual support for the task “dissolving of sodium chloride” (Puddu & Koliander, 2013, p. 29) 107

After the experiment the students should write one sentence with an explanation. Those sentences were presented already in chapter 11.1.3, sub-category “example sentences”. In the final task, the manifold experiences with salt water and maybe the recently conducted experiments became the basis for the level 2 experiment. There the students planned an investigation for distinguishing salt water and deionized water (Figure 11). 11.5 Conclusion Chapter six showed the manifold ways the teacher scaffolded the students. The teacher prepared the tasks and the task sheets (macro-scaffolding) and synchronized that with the micro-scaffolding during the lessons. She included learning opportunities to learn the language of chemistry, to write a lab report, to draw conclusions, to learn about inquiry, and much more. The last part showed the importance of the content within the tasks. After taking a closer look at the lessons, the question about the output arises. So the next chapter highlights the questionnaire “views of scientific inquiry” to take a look at the development of the students’ views during one school year.

108

12 The Questionnaire “Views of Scientific Inquiry” The questionnaire “Views of scientific inquiry” (VOSI) was conducted two times during the school year, first in September and then in June. 24 of the 31 students filled out the first “Views of scientific inquiry” questionnaire. Because of the deductive categorization, the level of elaboration of each category was assessed on a scale. The answer characterization covers “naïve”, “transitional” and “informed”. The characterization “no answer” was added to the scale as described in chapter 8.3.2.4. In the first round of the VOSI questionnaire, the students showed 39 naïve answers but only seven informed answers (Table 8). Answers without relation to one of the six deductive categories (labeled with n/a) were found 77 times out of the possible 144 relations, that is 53.5%.

Naïve Transitional Informed n/a Sum

39 21 7 77 144

Table 8: Summary of the VOSI questionnaire at the beginning of the school year

The distribution of the answers for each of the NOSI aspects is shown in Figure 34. The most “informed” answers were given in the category “justification of scientific knowledge”. There were two categories for which only four students wrote an encodable answer. These categories were “Scientific questions guide investigations” and “Community of practice”.

109

Figure 34: Summary of the first VOSI questionnaire

The second VOSI questionnaire was filled out by 18 students at the end of the school year in mid-June. Here the picture changed. This time there were more “transitional” than “naïve” answers. 44 times there was no relation to one of the six categories; this is 40.7% of the possible 108 relations.

Naïve

26

Transitional

31

Informed

7

No answer

44

Sum

108

Table 9: Summary of the VOSI questionnaire completed in June

The following Figure 35 shows the results of the second VOSI questionnaire in more detail. This time more students wrote appropriate answers in the category “Scientific questions guide investigations” but even less encodable answers in the category “Community of practice”. 110

Figure 35: Summary of the second VOSI questionnaire

While the first VOSI questionnaire shows four categories in which the students gave informed answers (Figure 34), there were only two categories with informed answers in the second questionnaire. What happened? Did the students have better insights during the first questionnaire? Did the students who gave informed answers simply not participate in the second questionnaire? The following figure shows the distribution of the answers into the categories only for the students who participated in both dates. 24 students were present to fill out the first questionnaire and 18 students were present to fill out the second one but only 16 students who filled out the first VOSI also completed the second one. So a comparison (Figure 37) between the first and the second questionnaire is only possible for these 16 students. Figure 36 shows the comparison of both VOSI questionnaires completed at the beginning and the end of the school year. The distribution of the characterization of the answers is shown in relation to the six VOSI categories.

111

Figure 36: Distribution of the answers into the categories for both dates of the usage of the VOSI questionnaire

Reduced to the number of students who participated in both dates, there are now three categories with informed answers at the beginning of the school year. In comparison, three developments from the first to the second application of the VOSI questionnaire are remarkable. The category “Multiple methods of scientific investigations” shows an increase of transitional answers and all answers were encodable on the second questionnaire. The category “Justification of scientific knowledge” shows an increase from two to six informed answers and a decrease from seven to three not encodable answers. The category “Community of practice” showed two informed answers at the beginning of the school year but none at the end of the school year. Instead, the number of transitional answers increased from one to three during the school year. Figure 36 indicates specifically that the two students who gave the informed answers in the first questionnaire gave the transitional answers in the second questionnaire. But the transfers between the two questionnaires are not that simple. The following figure (Figure 37) shows the transfers between the two questionnaires for all categories. As there are six deductive categories for each student, 96 relations were encodable.

112

Figure 37: Comparison between the first and the second VOSI questionnaire

Of the 27 naïve answers, at the beginning of the school year, nine remained naïve, twelve were now encodable as transitional, two answers changed to informed answers and for four categories no encodable answer was given at the end of the school year. Of the 14 transitional answers, five changed to naïve answers, six stayed transitional and for three categories coded as transitional on the first VOSI questionnaire, no answer was encodable for the second. From the six informed answers, one shifted to transitional, three stayed informed and for two nothing was written. From the 50 categories where the students did not write an encodable answer, 27 categories stayed unencodable. 23 were now coded; thereof twelve were coded as naïve, nine as transitional and two as informed. The development of the answers can be seen as positive by tendency. The students gave more elaborate answers at the end of the school year. In order to gain more insight, a closer look at the development of the three remarkable categories should be taken.

113

Figure 38: Transfer of answers in the category „Multiple methods of scientific investigation“

The category “Multiple methods of scientific investigation” (Figure 38) showed a straightforward positive development. All answers which were not encodeable on the first questionnaire were encodeable as naïve in the second questionnaire. The originally naïve answers either stayed naïve or improved to transitional answers. The informed answers stayed informed. Of the two transitional answers, only one answer was encodeable as naïve on the second questionnaire. The category “Justification of scientific knowledge” also showed a positive development. The increase of two to six informed answers mentioned before resulted from the transfer of two not encodeable answers and two former naïve answers (Figure 39). The two informed answers at the beginning of the school year remained informed. The one transitional answer at the beginning resulted in a naïve answer whereas the two transitional coded answers at the end of the school year, resulted from the transfer of one naïve and one formerly not encodeable answer.

114

Figure 39: Transfer of answers in the category “Justification of scientific knowledge”

The third remarkable category of the results of the VOSI questionnaire is the category “Community of practice” as there was one transitional answer and two informed answers at the beginning of the school year. There were three transitional answers but no informed answer left at the end of the school year. Interestingly, only one student who wrote an informed answer in the first place wrote a transitional answer at the end of the school year. The other two transitional answers resulted from students who wrote a not codeable answer on the first VOSI questionnaire.

Figure 40: Transfer of answers in the category „Community of practice“

115

These analyses of the transfers from the questionnaire at the beginning of the school year to the end of the school year show the development of individual students. The next step is a deeper analysis of four students for which the manifold data, which was presented separately up to now, is merged. 13 Focus on Individual Persons In this chapter a different view is adopted. Here, the starting point is not the value of a questionnaire but the students in the class. Exemplarily, three girls: Dana, Lija and Melina (sitting in the first row on the left) and one boy (at the back of the classroom) are going to be highlighted. The girls group was chosen for a few reasons. It was a stable group throughout the school year and all three were present most of the time. So there was much data available for the analysis: audio and video recordings, all completed questionnaires, lab reports, and observation protocols. Initially, Dana is described followed by Melina and Lija. Afterwards one boy, Dimitrij, is described in detail. He was also present at all times during the data collection. 13.1 Dana 10 Dana was 14 years and one month old at the beginning of the school year. Her first language is Serbian but she has Austrian citizenship. Prior to the business school she attended four years of primary school and four years of new secondary school. Her age IQ was 102 and her academic self-concept test showed a mean value of 4.4 on a 5-point Likert scale. In this questionnaire she agreed that she knows much about chemistry and that many tasks were easy for her to solve, for example. The “attitudes towards science questionnaire” (OECD, 2005), surprisingly, did not support the positive picture of science learning. She rather disagreed with the statement that she “enjoys acquiring new knowledge in science”11. She thought that science is neither “valuable to society” nor “very relevant” to her. In her free time she did not come in contact with science except for television shows with scientific content which she watched very often. Dana was not interested in the “ways scientists design experiments” and “what is required for scientific explanations”. Her values for the four categories of the “attitudes towards science” questionnaire were: • “Enjoyment of science (JOYSCI): 2.6 • General value of science (GENSCI): 3.2 10 11

Dana’s case has already been published (Abels & Puddu, 2014). These items stem from the PISA questionnaire (OECD, 2005) 116

• Science activities (SCIACT): 1.7 • Interest in science learning (INTSCI): 2.5.” (Abels & Puddu, 2014, p. 126) Results of the analysis of observational data were added for a better understanding of the standardized tests results. Dana’s participation in the classes was quite diverse. It can be described in the following way: She talked private stuff most of the time, daydreamed in the lab classes from time to time or played with her mobile phone. But she asked elaborate questions, voiced ideas for problem solving, and discussed a lot with her classmates if the task appealed to her. According to that there seems to be no direct relationship between her academic self-concept, her interest in chemistry, and her engagement in the laboratory lessons. Categories Question guide Multiple methods Multiple purposes Justification Data/Evidence Communities

Pre-test Naïve Transitional Transitional Informed Transitional Informed

Post-Test n/a Transitional Transitional Informed Transitional n/a

Table 10: Dana’s results on the “Views of scientific inquiry” questionnaire (Abels & Puddu, 2014, p. 127)

A look at the results of Dana’s VOSI questionnaire (Table 10) shows almost no change in the characterization of the given answers. The characterization of the categories “multiple methods”, “multiple purposes”, “Justification”, and “Data/Evidence” stayed the same. In two categories, the characterization changed from naïve and informed to n/a. But that was not in line with the observation. So a closer look at the actual answers was taken. Here are two examples of Dana’s answers: Question: “What types of activities do scientists (e.g., biologists, chemists, physicists, earth scientists) do to learn about the natural world? Discuss how scientists do their work. Dana’s answer at the beginning of the school year:

117

“They make graphics, inquiry, read something about the things they want to explain further. They write down everything they know and try to draw conclusions.”12 Dana’s answer at the end of the school year: “They observe, analyze the data they collected and they inquire. They describe/explain it, draw conclusions and give reasons for the results.” Both answers were characterized as transitional within the category “multiple methods of scientific investigations” as Dana mentions two methods at minimum without further explanation (see coding manual; appendix 1, p. 159 ff.) for both answers. However, Dana’s answer at the end of the school year includes much more scientifically appropriate vocabulary like “observe”, “analyze”, “data they collected”, and “give reasons”. This is not portrayed in the category system. In the second example a development can be observed concerning Dana’s views on scientific inquiry. With the deductive coding manual the answers could not be coded but they are still interesting as Dana’s views matured over the span of the school year. Question: A person interested in birds observes many different bird species and notices that they eat different types of food. The person notices that birds who eat similar types of food have similar shaped beaks. For example birds who eat nuts with a hard shell have short strong beaks. Birds who eats insects from a pond have long narrow beaks. The person concludes that there is a relationship between the shape of the beak and the type of food the bird eats. a) Do you consider this person’s investigation to be scientific? Explain your answer. Dana’s answer at the beginning of the school year: “Not really, because the beak of the birds is adapted to its way of living and eating, it is clear that if a bird eats nuts and cracks them open before that he has a strong beak, so that’s logical thinking.”

Dana’s answer at the end of the school year: “No, this person could easily figure that out if he/she would investigate thoroughly because that is not a novelty.” 12

Dana’s answers have already been published (Abels & Puddu, 2014). 118

To sum up, Dana demonstrated a positive development during the school year. In the laboratory she showed a good academic performance which matched the result of the academic self-concept test. Her inappropriate behavior (e.g. gossiping and playing with her mobile phone) could have stemmed from being bored or occasionally underchallenged. 13.2 Lija At the beginning of the school year Lija was 16 years and 8 month old. She has Austrian citizenship and her first language is Serbo-Croatian (according to her file). Out of the three female students, Lija was the oldest. She had already finished her compulsory school attendance after four years of primary school, four years of new secondary school, and one year prevocational school. In the questionnaire about the “attitudes towards science”, she agreed with the statement that she “enjoys acquiring new knowledge in science”, and she was also “interested in learning about science”. She rather disagreed, that science is “valuable to society” but she recognized the relevance of science for herself. She regularly watches and listens to science shows on TV and the radio. She is highly interested in the “ways scientists design experiments” and “what is required for scientific explanations”. Lija had a high academic self-concept in chemistry (4.8). Her age-IQ was 91, which is considered below average. Lija’s results for the categories of the “attitudes towards science” questionnaire are: • • • •

Enjoyment of science (JOYSCI): 4.0 General value of science (GENSCI): 2.8 Science activities (SCIACT): 2.5 Interest in science learning (INTSCI): 3.3.

Compared with the other students in class, Lija had the highest interest in science learning and also had the highest value of the category “Enjoyment of science”. Categories Question guide Multiple methods Multiple purposes Justification Data/Evidence Communities

Pre-test n/a Naïve Transitional Informed Transitional Transitional

Post-Test Naïve Naïve n/a Informed Naïve n/a

Table 11: Lija’s results on the “Views of scientific inquiry” questionnaire 119

Despite Lija’s interest in chemistry and the way scientists work and her positive self-assessment, the two VOSI questionnaires do not show any positive development (cp.Table 11). Her views concerning the category “multiple methods” stayed naïve, the answers in the category “Justification of scientific knowledge” stayed informed. In the category “multiple purposes” she wrote an answer characterized as transitional in the beginning but no answer at the end of the school year. In the category “distinctions between data and evidence” the answer was characterized as transitional on the pre-test but only as naïve on the post-test. Two examples should give an accurate impression: Question: How do scientists decide what and how to do their investigations? Describe all the factors that you think influence the work of scientists. Be as exact as possible. Lija’s answer at the beginning of the school year: What new and is interesting research the scientists. They sit in groups and speak about it together. Lija’s answer at the end of the school year: They take samples and examine it compare it with other samples they took. Discuss what can be right. So, at the pre-test, the first sentence of the answer was characterized as transitional in the category “multiple purposes” since Lija mentions two purposes: novelty and curiosity. The second sentence was characterized as transitional in the category “communities of practice” because Lija wrote that scientists “sit in groups and speak about it” which was interpreted as her thinking that scientists work in groups. On the post-test Lija only wrote about one method (characterized in “multiple methods” as a naïve view). The second example shows how Lija thought that scientists reach conclusions: Question: If several scientists, working independently, ask the same question and follow the same procedures to collect data, will they necessarily come to the same conclusions? Explain your decision. Lija’s answer at the beginning of the school year: Yes, if they have the same point of view they can reach the same conclusion. Lija’s answer at the end of the school year: It doesn’t have to be that they reach different conclusions. They have different opinions therefore they can reach different conclusions. 120

Both answers were characterized as informed in the category “justification of scientific knowledge” because Lija wrote that the scientists can reach the same conclusions (if they have the same point of view) but not necessarily. On the post-test Lija demonstrated the same view, just inverted. They were translated from the original language of instruction (German) and do not mirror Lija’s struggles with the language. The original sentences have severe spelling mistakes. In summary, there is a noticeable difference between Lija’s positive attitude towards science, her academic self-concept, her behavior in the laboratory lessons and her performance in the second VOSI questionnaire. A possible explanation could be that the VOSI-questionnaire is solely test-based. Lija took the most time out of everyone in the class to fill out the questionnaire. Unfortunately, Lija was not available for follow-up interviews. 13.3 Melina Melina was 14 years and eight months old at the beginning of the school year. She has Bosnian citizenship and Bosnian is her first language. Before she went to business school, Melina had four years of primary school and four years of new secondary school. In the questionnaire about her “attitude towards science” she rather agreed that “science is valuable to society”. She also thought that “science is important for helping us to understand the natural world” but she rather disagreed that “science is very relevant” to her. Outside school she never or hardly ever had contact with science. Melina had medium interest in learning about chemistry and she had high interest in learning “the ways scientists design experiments” and medium interest learning “what is required for scientific explanations”. Melina’s values for the four categories of the “attitudes towards science” questionnaire were: • • • •

Enjoyment of science (JOYSCI): 3.0 General value of science (GENSCI): 2.8 Science activities (SCIACT): 1.2 Interest in science learning (INTSCI): 3.1.

Her academic self-concept in chemistry reached the highest possible value (5.0). So Melina stated that she had only medium interest in learning chemistry but she thought that she was very talented and knowledgeable. Her age-IQ was 105. Melina was the helping hand of Lija during the lessons. She seemed to work actively but did not lead the investigation. So in this case, the attitude towards science matches the academic self-concept as well as the observations during the lessons. 121

The results of the VOSI questionnaire (Table 12) paint a different picture. There seemed to be no development. Categories Questions guide Multiple methods Multiple purposes Justification Data/Evidence Communities

Pre-test Naïve Naïve Transitional n/a Transitional n/a

Post-Test n/a Transitional Naïve n/a Transitional n/a

Table 12: Melina’s results on the “Views of scientific inquiry” questionnaire

Melina did not write much in the questionnaires. Here is an example for the category “multiple methods” which is again the question about the relationship between types of food and forms of the beak. Question: b) Do you consider this person’s investigation to be an experiment? Explain your decision. Melina’s answer at the beginning of the school year: No, for me it is rather exploring. Melina’s answer at the end of the school year: No, she did an observation not an experiment. In the first questionnaire Melina mentioned exploring as a method (characterized in “multiple methods” as naïve). At the end of the school year, she seemed to be aware of multiple methods of scientific investigations and recognized the difference between an observation and an experiment (characterized in “multiple methods” as transitional). The second example is in the category “multiple purposes”. This category is coded in two different questions. At the beginning of the school year: Question: How do scientists decide what and how they do their investigations? Describe all the factors that you think influence the work of scientists. Be as accurate as possible. Melina’s answer: They investigate what they are interested in most and use the opportunities they have.

122

This answer was coded as transitional by the coding rule (see appendix 2, p. 167 ff.) because Melina mentioned curiosity and practicality as possible purposes. At the end of the school year Melina did not write an answer to that question but she mentioned possible purposes on another question. Question: “What types of activities do scientists (e.g., biologists, chemists, physicists, earth scientists) do to learn about the natural world? Discuss how scientists do their work. Melina’s answer: With experiments! They decide to do something and then they do it. This answer was coded as naïve as she seems to describe what the author would interpret as some kind of spontaneous decision as a purpose for scientific investigations. To sum up, Melina shows a good academic performance but the development of her views of scientific inquiry did not mirror her performance in the laboratory. 13.4 Dimitrij Dimitrij is one of the oldest students in class. He was 16 years and 9 months old at the beginning of the school year. His first language is Russian and he has Russian citizenship. Prior to the business school, he attended four years primary school and five years at a new secondary school which indicates that he had to repeat a whole grade in the new secondary school. In the questionnaire about “attitudes towards science” he stated that he was interested in learning about science and acquiring scientific knowledge. Dimitrij rather disagreed that science is relevant for society and disagreed that science is important for him. But he agreed fully that “advances in science and technology usually improve people’s living conditions” and that “science is important for helping us to understand the natural world”. He expressed high interest in learning about topics of many scientific disciplines except chemistry for which he showed only medium interest. He was also highly interested in learning how scientists design experiments. Dimitrij’s values for the four categories of the “attitudes towards science” questionnaire were: • • • •

Enjoyment of science (JOYSCI): 3.8 General value of science (GENSCI): 2.8 Science activities (SCIACT): 1.8 Interest in science learning (INTSCI): n/a. 123

The academic self-concept reached the value of 3.6 which was an average value in this class. He thought that he had mediocre talent in chemistry and also had medium knowledge in chemistry and described himself as of medium intelligence. But he stated that the chemistry tasks came naturally to him. His age-IQ was 91. So Dimitrij’s values in the questionnaires were quite average. He also showed medium activity in the laboratory lessons. But Dimitrij showed major improvement on the two VOSI questionnaires in five categories (see Table 13). At the beginning of the school year, Dimitrij gave either no or a not codeable answer in three categories. In two categories he gave naïve answers. At the end of the school year, Dimitrij’s answers were characterized one time as naïve and four times as transitional. Categories Questions guide Multiple methods Multiple purposes Justification Data/Evidence Communities

Pre-test n/a Naïve n/a n/a Naïve n/a

Post-Test Transitional Transitional Naïve Transitional Transitional n/a

Table 13: Dimitrij’s results onthe „Views of scientific inquiry” questionnaire

Two examples should show his development: Question: “What types of activities do scientists (e.g., biologists, chemists, physicists, earth scientists) do to learn about the natural world? Discuss how scientists do their work. Dimitrij’s answer on the pre-test: About chemistry, about research Dimitrij’s answer on the post-test: They experiment much and observe. To observe is primarily the most important in science. Then explanation and experiment. The answer at the end of the school year was coded as transitional in the category “multiple methods” according to the coding manual as Dimitrij mentioned two methods without explanation. In the second example, Dimitrij did not write an answer on the pre-test but was able to write a response at the end of the school year. 124

Question: a) If several scientists, working independently, ask the same question and follow the same procedures to collect data, will they necessarily come to the same conclusions? Explain your decision. Dimitrij’s answer: “Probably yes, if they use the same data and ask the same question.” b) If several scientists, working independently, ask the same question and follow different procedures to collect data, will they necessarily come to the same conclusions? Explain your decision: Dimitrij’s answer: “No, they don’t reach the same conclusions because they work with different data.” In the answer to part a) Dimitrij recognized the importance of the question (category “questions guide scientific investigations”). He also wrote that the conclusions are dependent on the adduced data. He did not think that they come to the same conclusions but he was not entirely sure (category “justification of scientific knowledge”). In summary, it can be said that Dimitrij was a low-key student in the laboratory lessons. He thought that science was important to understand the natural world but not important to him. All numbers on the questionnaires were average. He did not stand out in the observations of the author, neither on the audio nor the video recordings, nor the observation protocols. But he showed a significant improvement on the VOSI test.

125

14 Discussion In the following chapter, the results are discussed guided by the research questions posed. As a consequence the implementation of inquiry-based learning in this diverse class is discussed first followed by the discussion of the scaffolding of the students. The last part involves the development of the views of scientific inquiry and the application of the questionnaire. 14.1 Successive Implementation of Inquiry-based Learning Regarding research question 1 (How does the teacher introduce inquiry-based learning in the class?) the analysis of the implementation of inquiry-based learning showed a successive introduction at the beginning, as recommended (N. G. Lederman, 2008) (see research question 1). The teacher started with level 0 alternating with inquiry level 1 tasks (phase 1, see Figure 19) followed by an introduction of level 2 tasks (phase 2). The appearance of phase 3, which I named “application”, was of particular interest. During this phase, the applied level matched the students’ skills and the goal of the teacher. So the inquiry level changed with nearly every task. Finally, the teacher raised the level one last time (phase 4) to give the students the opportunity to create their own questions in the course of a coupled inquiry. One relationship became apparent during the analysis: The higher the content knowledge and the familiarity with the substances and equipment, the higher the applied inquiry level in the tasks. Content knowledge encompasses the topics from the curriculum with its concepts and terminology. Late in the school year the teacher asked the students to develop their own questions during a coupled inquiry. As a starting point, the students conducted level 0 tasks with various content. Subsequently, the students chose one content and were asked to pose a question within that topic. I labeled this coupled inquiry as level 2.5. Level 3 was not reached within the school year. I ascribe the stopping at level 2.5 to the limited time the teacher had at her disposal. Unfortunately, it was the last time the students had chemistry in their school career and it was not possible to build up on their skills and knowledge in the following school year.

126

14.2 The Scaffolding In the following chapter research question 2 is discussed (How does the teacher scaffold the students while conducting inquiry-based learning and is it clear how the teacher takes the diversity of the class into consideration?). Scaffolding is a way of accompanying students while learning. The teacher chooses the goal beforehand and offers suitable learning opportunities. So the teacher’s goal is to create tasks which are intended to hit the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978) of every student in the classroom. The teacher in the study at hand provided the same task for every student. So did the teacher take the diversity of the class into account? 14.2.1

Taking the Diversity into Account

The students differed immensely in this diverse class. The teacher in this study wished to accommodate every students’ needs as well as possible. In order to achieve this, the teacher applied various measures. The assignment according to the different individual dimensions of diversity is a result of the analyses and not an ascription of the teacher. So in the following section, the teacher’s actions with regard to diversity are discussed starting with the aspect of age followed by the scaffolding of language. The chapter is concluded with the discussion of cultural considerations by the teacher. The teacher was aware of the large age differences within the class (see chapter 9.1.3.) but did not vary the tasks accordingly. The teacher thought that the tasks would be appropriate for every age (almost 14 to 17 years of age). That view is supported by the feedback the teacher obtained at the end of the school year. The next diversity aspect is language. During the research project the role of language became more and more important. On the one hand it became an issue because of the language problems in this diverse class, but on the other hand, because of the importance of language for learning science. There has to be an active engagement with language on all levels: speaking, listening, writing, and reading to further language (Yore, Bisanz, & Hand, 2003). In this particular class, 14 different first languages were present. So the teacher reacted on the heterogeneity by intensive scaffolding of the language. It was such an important issue that “language” became one main category. The teacher in this study used many strategies to support students in language learning both in the language of instruction as well as in the language of chemistry. Referring back to chapter 6.2, the teacher used many subjectindependent ways of scaffolding the language like using pictures (represented by 127

the sub-category “visualizations”), providing aids for building sentences (represented by sub-category “example sentences”), for writing (represented by sub-categories “example charts”, “guiding questions”, and “read out aloud”, and understanding of texts (represented by sub-categories “explanation of words” and “sentence structure and length of the sentences”). She also utilized a suitable teaching approach, namely, inquiry-based learning which furthers classroom talk (Carnevale & Wojnesitz, 2014; Markic, 2012b; Markic & Abels, 2013; Markic et al., 2013; Riebling, 2013). The teacher also used short sentences, active forms, repeated sentence parts which were important, and “form[ed] the text graphically” (Rösch, 2009, p. 165). The reduction of terminology used by the teacher and symbolizations was not part of the analysis but could be a starting point for further analysis. The teacher used a large repertoire of linguistic devices. To give meaning, the teacher used “words, images, symbols, actions and other modes of communication” (Wellington & Osborne, 2001, p. 7). In addition to that, the teacher could enhance the repertoire by e.g. presenting new words with the article and the plural form, introducing strategies to learning new vocabulary or games to further switching between representations. Closely tied to the scaffolding of language are the cultural considerations of scaffolding. The teacher was interested in the cultural and the associated religious background of the students. But she did not inquire about their beliefs regarding science prior to the lessons. As recommended in chapter 6.3, the teacher explained the necessary steps of the process by using the inquiry cycle as a visual support and voiced her expectations to the students. A noticeable effort was put into the scaffolding of the written language and the language of science, whereas the scaffolding of argumentation was not detectable. During the analyzed video recordings (view of the whole class) and audio recordings (teacher and two groups), no particular needs were noticed during group discussions but it is possible that other groups within the class needed support concerning argumentation. Nevertheless, argumentation skills should be developed further as part of scientific literacy and could be the next focal point of scaffolding for the teacher. The recommendation of introducing inquiry-based learning carefully to the students was fulfilled by the successive implementation. Of course it is difficult, or rather impossible, to fulfill all recommendations found in the literature. It is a challenge to have the diverse needs of all students in mind and consider them in the scaffolding. The teacher in my study already used an extraordinary amount of language scaffolding strategies.

128

Scaffolding of language is only a part of the scaffolding the teacher could provide. The following part addresses the scaffolding during inquiry-based learning. 14.2.2

Scaffolding while “Doing Inquiry-based Learning”

De Jong and van der Valk (2007) state that with increasing openness the role and the responsibilities undergo a change. The scaffolding while doing inquirybased learning (category “doing inquiry-based learning”) changes with the level, while the other categories “learning about inquiry” and “language” are levelindependent. The category “content”, specifically the difficulty and the newness of the content, induces a certain (suitable) level as the scaffolding of the level is linked to the aspired goals at that respective level. At inquiry level 0, for example, the students get to know new methods, new equipment and so on. The detailed sub-categories match those goals with the exception of the sub-category “pay attention and praise”. Regarding the circumstances of the students in the class, this sub-category seems to be especially important. The students need to see that their effort is rewarded in order to heighten their motivation. Because “[a] student with a history of school failure or underachievement can be expected to lack motivation for future school tasks and may have attention problems” (Scruggs and Matropieri, 1993 in Chamberlain, 2009, p. 7). At inquiry level 1, all sub-categories are destined to keep the students on track and to establish a logical chain. To answer the questions posed is very difficult for the students at this level and the sub-categories mirror the struggle the students undergo when working on level 1 tasks. At inquiry level 2, the scaffolding differs again. At this level the teacher asks open questions to make the students talk about their work which is in accordance with the theory (Furtak, 2008). How the teacher supports the students should match the requirements of the respective level. The teacher matches the level of the task with the prerequisites of the students and uses micro-scaffolding for the fine-tuning in order to allow as many students as possible to stay within the zone of proximal development. 14.2.3

Difficulties of Scaffolding when “Learning About Inquiry”

In this chapter, the scaffolding of the goal as well as the main category “learning about inquiry” is discussed. The analysis indicates that this goal is the one the teacher in this study struggled with most. During the lessons the teacher repeatedly showed the students a simple inquiry cycle (Figure 1). This strong linkage to that simple inquiry cycle helped students to understand and follow the necessary steps. But, simultaneously, it seems to 129

have furthered the naïve conviction that there is only one correct way to do research. This is reflected by the answers from the “views of scientific inquiry” questionnaire, when the students write about the generation of data and the resulting “truth” after the analysis. A discussion about the handling of anomalous data or about the justification of the interpretations of the group made, occurred when the situation arose within the regular laboratory work. Such discussions were hardly ever provoked by the teacher. Because of that only the students within the group (up to four students) took part in it. But those four students were fully engaged in the discussion. The following task was created in an attempt to let the whole class take part in such a discussion. In one of the later laboratory classes the teacher initiated a thought experiment with the students. The students should only think about the task and discuss their thoughts afterwards without actually conducting it. Here is the task: “One group of students is testing the pH value of a green shampoo. The students are using a liquid universal indicator and they know that this indicator turns red if the solution is sour, turns green if the solution is neutral and turns purple if the solution is basic. The students add some drops of the indicator into a small amount of the shampoo. Afterwards the color of the liquid is a dark brownish green. Question: What can you say about the pH value? What do you know? (TS20120430) This would have been a great opportunity to discuss methods, data collecting, reasonableness of data, and so on. Unfortunately, the students were not ready for such a discussion, as the contributions to the discussion demonstrated. It seemed that the students did not grasp the underlying problem of the task. This could have been because the task was not “owned” by the students as they were not doing it actively and therefore it was not their problem. An explanation could be found by applying moderate constructivism (Gerstenmaier & Mandl, 1995). Supporters of constructivism plead in favor of self-activity of the students. So it seems more fruitful, even if only some students are engaged in learning about inquiry. 14.2.4

Conclusions about the Scaffolding by the Teacher

The teacher supported the students in many different ways. The successive implementation of inquiry-based learning enabled the students to participate without excessive demands placed on them. While conducting the tasks, various ways of scaffolding took place. To compensate for the language difficulties of the students and to further the language of chemistry, the teacher used many 130

strategies recommended by the literature. The teacher also gave consideration to the diversity dimensions “age” and “culture”. As prerequisites of the students, goals of the teacher, and difficulty of the content affect the level of the tasks, the scaffolding provided proved to be level-specific while doing inquiry-based learning The goal of scaffolding while learning about inquiry presents difficulties. The introduction of a simplified inquiry-cycle makes the students believe in the scientific method. A reflective way of thinking about inquiry is not achievable in this setting. The case study at hand shows the myriad of actions the teacher set to support the students to further scientific literacy and to educate reflective citizens. For teachers with such few lessons in the time table it is hard to make inquiry accessible to the students. The role of the teacher is often underestimated though, in fact, it requires extensive professional development to have success in inquiry-based teaching (Blanchard et al., 2010). The next part discusses the views of the students about scientific inquiry and their development over one school year. 14.3 Students’ Views of Scientific Inquiry In the following section, research question 3 (How do the students’ views of scientific inquiry change throughout the course of one school year?) is discussed. It was expected by the researcher that the views of scientific inquiry were going to develop in a positive way, which means an increase of transitional and informed answers to the open questions in the VOSI questionnaire. Altogether it seems that the development over the school year was positive. There were indeed more transitional and informed answers at the end of the school year. The transitional answers were doubled (from 14 to 28) and the informed answers increased from five to seven. The interviews conducted subsequent to the test supported the answers of the students and did not induce a change of coding. Afterwards, I looked closer at four students and made a thick description taking all data sources into account which allowed a more nuanced view. The four students described, Dana, Melina, Lija, and Dimitrij, differed greatly. The age span was two years and eight months. The working attitude varied from active and engaged, to nondescript, to inappropriate behavior. The results of the “Views of scientific inquiry” questionnaire span from no visible development at 131

all, to improvement in the language of chemistry, to a remarkable development. So the students varied substantially. But when looking at one student there is no conclusive picture achievable for all things considered; no “if then” relation was possible to phrase. The student who was engaged most during the tasks showed no positive development in the VOSI questionnaire, for example. A closer look into the answers to the VOSI questionnaire painted a more differentiated picture of the developments. Dana, for example, showed no progression in views according to the coding by following the coding manual but some significant improvement in the terminology. Two things were remarkable: First, the positive development of the class in the questionnaire was moderated by the closer look at the students. Second, the results of the VOSI questionnaire do not match the impression gained from other data sources such as lab reports and audio and video-recordings. Possible ways of explaining the inconclusive picture are: 1. Such questionnaires do not match the language abilities of the students (Lee, 2005) 2. The self-activity during the tasks does not further the development of the views of scientific inquiry as a) the terminology is not used actively and b) the “learning about inquiry” was not emphasized explicitly enough during the lessons. The first point addresses the questionnaire itself with its long and challenging questions and its usefulness as a data source and is discussed in the methods section (see chapter 14.4.1 and 14.4.3). During the lessons, the students had to fill in their questions, assumptions, and conclusions into every lab report they wrote but they did not adopt those words into their active vocabulary. When students talked during the inquiry process they often did not name things explicitly. Words like “that”, “thing” or others were used to replace the technical terms. There is no necessity for verbalization (Grießhaber, 2010, S. 49; Riebling, 2013). During inquiry tasks, gestures are very important on the teachers’ side as well as on students’ side to communicate successfully (Roth & Welzel, 2001). So, continuative effort is necessary to further develop the terminology in the classroom. It is known that learning about scientific inquiry is more successful when the topic is made explicit (see e.g. Akerson & Abd-El-Khalick, 2003; Metz, 2004; Oliveira, Akerson, Colak, Pongsanon, & Genel, 2012). A more positive development of the views of scientific inquiry is scarcely to be expected.

132

The results of the VOSI questionnaire (Figure 37: Comparison between the first and the second VOSI questionnaire) changed over time (and publications) (see Abels & Puddu, 2014; Puddu & Lembens, 2013) because of the often repeated argumentative validation and successively refined coding manual. 14.4 Discussion of the Methods Different methods were used in the thesis at hand. During collection data, qualitative methods such as non-participant observation, video and audiorecordings, and quantitative methods like different questionnaires were used. Also, during the analysis of the data, qualitative methods like qualitative content analysis and descriptive statistics of the analysis of the IQ-test and the questionnaires were used. All information gathered was used to make a thick description of the classroom situation, the lessons, and the students. As this study is an explorative case study with only one class, it has certain limitations which will be discussed in the following chapters. First, considerations about the data collection are mentioned followed by the discussion of the intelligence test, the questionnaire “views of scientific inquiry”, and the PISA questionnaire. Thoughts about suitable methods for diverse classrooms conclude this part. 14.4.1

Data Collection

The data collection methods (non-participant observation, video and audiorecordings) were deemed appropriate for this explorative case-study. Although much data was collected to paint the big picture, on some levels further information would still enrich the thick description. More information about the language spoken at home and proportional distribution of languages used by the students would be interesting. I only asked for the first language of the students in one questionnaire. In hindsight, a reading comprehension test could have been helpful. It would enrich the description of the students and allow a better evaluation of their answers. 14.4.2

Intelligence Test

While conducting the CFT 20-R intelligence test I came to realize that following the instruction manual is not possible in this diverse class. The test is considered a well-organized group test with a strict manual. The realization of the test was quite different within the class. The students did not appreciate the strict procedure of the test. They did not like having to wait until they were allowed to move on to the next page, so the longer the introduction lasted, the more fidgety and noisy they became. I had to shorten the introduction to the different tasks to 133

accommodate the unease of the students. I just made sure that the students understood the next task and let them work on that. But all of the students finished the test and I was quite proud of them. So the long introductions and the tasks are a challenge for the students’ concentration and caused unease among the students. The results of this standardized instrument should be treated with caution. Usage in such a classroom situation should be reconsidered. 14.4.3

Questionnaire “Views of Scientific Inquiry”

The questions of the questionnaire “views of scientific inquiry” are quite long and complex. It is necessary to read carefully, to phrase and write down the answers. For my research I only shortened the questionnaire (see chapter 8.3.1.1) but not the questions themselves. As the demand of this questionnaire is quite high, students with language difficulties may have problems with understanding. It is also possible, that the students are at a loss for words and have difficulties expressing their opinions in written form. One approach to conquer this problem could be to adjust the items to the register of the students or to differentiate the items for different students. But if the items are adjusted, the comparison is compromised. The guiding manual for the interviews I did subsequent to the questionnaire consist of the same questions as the questionnaire. To get different and more detailed information about students’ views of scientific inquiry, a different (simpler) wording in the questions and shorter sentences, would be more expedient. Some nuances are hidden by using deductive coding for the analysis of the answers and fitting it into a scale. Taking a closer look at the answers proved to be worthwhile and a different, more inductive analysis technique would better achieve the principle of openness. 14.4.4

PISA Questionnaire

As the number of students is limited in my study, the PISA questionnaire cannot be used as a strictly quantitative tool. But this was never the intention. The questionnaire was used as an additional source of information in an almost qualitative way. The variables (see 8.3.2.5) like JOYSCI (enjoyment of science) or GENSCI (general value of science) were calculated and used to compare one person with another. The multiple-choice items have the advantage of answering the questions quite fast, but the predefined answers narrow the range of possible answers. 134

With this in mind, the questions in this existing international questionnaire were too general. The questions should be more precise and adjusted to the local conditions. Moreover, in further studies, the questionnaire should better suit the needs of a case study and the principle of openness. Nevertheless, the answers to the questionnaire were another valuable piece for the picture I painted through my work. 14.4.5

Suitable Methods for Diverse Classrooms

After discussing the limitations of the study, the question of suitable methods arose. In a study about conceptual growth, Dalton, Morocco, Tivnan, and Mead (1997) illustrated the influence of assessment tools on students with learning disabilities. Those students showed less conceptual knowledge growth compared to their peers on a written assessment but performed better on a diagram test. That insight “indicated the need to carefully consider the influence of testing modality on the determination of students’ conceptual knowledge growth” (Minner et al., 2010, p. 18). Reich (2014), for example, criticizes standardized tests because they have proven to be insufficient in capturing all the facets of learning and have shown minor significance for comprehension of application and transfer in learning. To provide a remedy, the use of concept maps and knowledge maps is discussed in the literature (Miller et al., 2009; O'Donnell, Dansereau, & Hall, 2002). One pitfall is the extensive effort required to introduce the method to the students so they can use it adequately for research purposes. A possible solution to the problem of which research methods best capture the students’ skills and abilities, could be to focus primarily on observational data and forgo data from questionnaires produced by the students. A collection of artefacts could supplement the data material. 14.5 Conclusion and Outlook Teaching in a diverse classroom is a challenging task. To support teachers with addressing this task, appropriate professional development programs are necessary. Insights into an authentic classroom situation are needed for designing such programs. This explorative single-case study aims to paint a vivid picture of one possible way to introduce inquiry-based learning in a diverse classroom by describing the actions of one teacher during one school year.

135

The classroom where the research took place is located in a business school. In this classroom, inquiry-based learning is implemented as an approach to science education adjustable to the students’ individual needs. The teacher considers the prior knowledge and adapts the approach to the specific situation. The diversity of the students is considered by introducing inquiry-based learning slowly and successively in four distinctive phases. Various strategies of scaffolding are applied. A large part of scaffolding is dedicated to language support. This support happens through macro-scaffolding via different features of the task sheets, as well as micro-scaffolding while doing inquiry-based learning. Examples for strategies of micro-scaffolding are helping with the language of chemistry while phrasing questions or conclusions both orally and in written form. Other parts of scaffolding are supporting the students ‘to do inquiry’, ‘to learn scientific content’, and ‘to learn about inquiry’. The last part appears especially difficult for the teacher. Unintentionally, a strong belief in the scientific method is fostered. In addition to scaffolding, the investigation of the personal views of scientific inquiry is central. When considering all data sources, the results show an inconclusive picture which can be ascribed to the difficulties of the students with reading and understanding the complex questionnaire, as well as difficulties with phrasing the answers. A different research method would be preferred for future projects. A wide range of established research tools already exist for research. With the increasing diversity of today’s classrooms, the requirements for the tools change and some of the tools might not be applicable anymore. So, one relevant issue for future research is to evaluate the usage of existing research tools in diverse classrooms. The thesis at hand provides a first contribution to this. Various strategies of scaffolding are described in this thesis. The assessment of the strategies is still open. This would be the next step to research. Furthermore, it would be interesting to conduct similar studies in different settings. Additionally, a differentiation of the tasks on an individual level should be considered for future projects to accommodate the needs of a diverse classroom. In this research, assessment is omitted intentionally as it would have contradicted the explorative character. For future projects, however, a holistic assessment of all three goals of inquiry-based learning, “to learn scientific content”, “to learn to do inquiry”, and “to learn about inquiry” (Abrams et al., 2008), suitable for diverse classrooms should be strived for. As the study shows, language sensitive assessment techniques are needed and could be developed as a first step to meeting the diversity of todays’ classrooms. So the thesis at hand contributed to close two research gaps: a) to show insights into a real, classroom and b) to take a closer look at the diversity in the 136

classroom and how the teacher deals with it. Regarding both points the data shall form the basis for designing a professional development program in order to support teachers to consider the diversity of the students. During the research the need of appropriate research methods in diverse settings became obvious. So, the thesis opened a wide field for future research with the suggestion to review the existing research tools, as a first step.

137

References AAAS. (1989). Science for All Americans Online Retrieved from http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/sfaatoc.htm 201601-26. AAAS. (2009). Benchmarks: The Nature of Science. Retrieved from http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/index.php?chapter=1 Retrieved 2012-03-06 Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., MamlokNaaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H.-l. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397-419. Abels, S. (2012). Untersuchendes Lernen der Naturwissenschaften mit allen SchülerInnen. In S. Bernholt (Ed.), Konzepte fachdidaktischer Strukturierung für den Unterricht. Gesellschaft für die Didaktik der Chemie und Physik. Jahrestagung in Oldenburg 2011 (pp. 343-345). Berlin: LIT. Abels, S. (2014). Inquiry-Based Science Education and Special Needs Teachers' Reflections on an Inclusive Setting. Sisyphus Journal of Education, 2(2), 124-154. Abels, S. (2015a). Implementing Inquiry-based Science Education to Foster Emotional Engagement of Special Needs Students. In K. Murat & M. Orgill (Eds.), Affective Dimensions in Chemistry Education (pp. 107-131). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Abels, S. (2015b). Scaffolding Inquiry-Based Science and Chemistry Education in Inclusive Classrooms. In N. L. Yates (Ed.), New Devolopments in Science Education Research (pp. 77-96). New York: Nova. Abels, S., & Lembens, A. (2015). Mysteries als Einstieg ins Forschende Lernen im Chemieunterricht. Chemie und Schule, 2015(1b), 3-5. Abels, S., & Puddu, S. (2014). Inquiry-based learning envirionments to welcome the diversity of a chemistry class. In C. P. Constantinou, N. Papadouris & A. Hadjigeorgiou (Eds.), E-Book Proceedings of the ESERA 2013 Conference: Science Education Research For Evidence-based Teaching and Coherence in Learning. Part 12: Co-editors L. Avraamidou, M. Michelini (pp. 122-130). Nicosia, Cyprus: European Science Education Research Association. Abels, S., Puddu, S., & Lembens, A. (2014). Wann flockt die Milch im Kaffee? Mit "Mysteries" zu differenziertem Forschenden Lernen im Chemieunterricht. Naturwissenschaften im Unterricht - Chemie, 25(142), 37-41.

138

Abrams, E. (2008). Assessing Student Understanding in an Inquiry-Based Learning Environment. In E. Abrams, S. A. Southerland & P. Silva (Eds.), Inquiry in the Classroom. Realities and Opportunities (pp. 150157). Charlotte, North Carolina: Information Age Publishing. Abrams, E., Southerland, S. A., & Evans, C. (2008). Inquiry in the Classroom: Identifying Necessary Components of a Useful Definition. In E. Abrams, S. A. Southerland & P. Silva (Eds.), Inquiry in the Classroom: Realities and Opportunities (pp. xi-xlii). Charlotte, North Carolina: Information Age Publishing. Akerson, V. L., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2003). Teaching Elements of Nature of Science: A Yearlong Case Study of a Fourth-Grade Teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1025-1049. Atteslander, P. (2003). Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung (10th ed.). Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing Literacy in SecondLanguage Learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on LanguageMinority Children and Youth. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. M. (Eds.). (1993). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Baumert, J., Klieme, E., Neubrand, M., Prenzel, M., Schiefele, U., Schneider, W., Tillmann, K.-J., & Weiß, M. (2000). Soziale Bedingungen von Schulleistungen: Zur Erfassung von Kontextmerkmalen durch Schüler-, Schul- und Elternfragebögen Retrieved 2015-30-06 bifie. (2011). Kompetenzmodell Naturwissenschaften 8. Schulstufe. Retrieved from https://www.bifie.at/system/files/dl/bist_nawi_kompetenzmodell8_2011-10-21.pdf Retrieved 2015-04-09 Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V. D., Annetta, L. A., & Granger, E. M. (2010). Is Inquiry Possible in Light of Accountability?: A Quantitative Comparison of the Relative Effectiveness of Guided Inquiry and Verification Laboratory Instruction. Science Education, 94(4), 577-616. bmb. (2014). Lehrplan der Handelsakademie. Retrieved from https://www.hak.cc/node/3600 Retrieved 2017-04-10 bmb. (2016). Education in Austria 2016/17. Wien: Retrieved from https://www.bmb.gv.at/enfr/school/bw_en/bildungswege2016_eng.pdf?5t e5kh Retrieved 2017-05-11 bmukk. (2009). Naturwissenschaftliche Bildungsstandards. Berufsbildende Höhere Schulen. Das Kompetenzmodell. Retrieved from http://www.bildungsstandards.berufsbildendeschulen.at/de/kompetenzmo delle/schulartenuebergreifend.html Retrieved 2017-06-01

139

Bohl,

T., Bönsch, M., Trautmann, M., & Wischer, B. (2012). Binnendifferenzierung - ein altes Thema in der aktuellen Diskussion. Zur Einleitung. In T. Bohl, M. Bönsch, M. Trautmann & B. Wischer (Eds.), Binnendifferenzierung Teil 1: Didaktische Grundlagen und Forschungsergebnisse zur Binnendifferenzierung im Unterricht. Immenhausen bei Kassel: Prolog-Verlag. Bonnstetter, R. J. (1998). Inquiry: Learning from the Past with an Eye on the Future. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3(1). Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press. Bruneforth, M., Lassnigg, L., Vogtenhuber, S., Schreiner, C., & Breit, S. (Eds.). (2016). Nationaler Bildungsbericht Österreich 2015, Band 1. Das Schulsystem im Spiegel von Daten und Indikatoren. Graz: Leykam. Bruner, J. (1977). The Process of Education (Revised ed.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Buck, L. B., Bretz, S. L., & Towns, M. H. (2008). Characterizing the Level of Inquiry in the Undergraduate Laboratory. Journal of College Science Teaching, 38(1), 52-58. Burns, T., & Shadoian-Gersing, V. (2010). The importance of effective teacher education for diversity. In OECD (Ed.), Educating Teachers for Diversity: Meeting the Challenge (pp. 19-40): OECD Publishing. Bybee, R. W. (1995). Achieving scientific literacy. The Science Teacher, 62(7), 28-33. Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving Scientific Literacy: From Purposes to Practices: Heinemann Educ Books. Carlone, H. B., Johnson, A., & Eisenhart, M. (2014). Cultural Perspective in Science Education. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education Volume II (pp. 651-670). New York: Routledge. Carnevale, C., & Wojnesitz, A. (2014). Sprachsensibler Fachunterricht in der Sekundarstufe. Grundlagen - Methoden - Praxisbeispiele. Graz: ÖSZ. Chamberlain, K. (2009). Inquiry and Scientific Literacy. In K. Chamberlain & C. C. Crane (Eds.), Reading, Writing, and Inquiry in the Science Classroom, Grades 6-12 (pp. 139). Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175-218.

140

Cho, S., & McDonnough, J. (2009). Meeting the Needs of High School Science Teachers in English Language Learner Instruction. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(4), 385-402. doi: 10.1007/s10972-009-9136-9 Colburn, A. (2000). An Inquiry Primer. Science Scope, 23(6), 42-44. Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the Essence of Inquiry: New Roles for Science Teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916937. Cummins, J. (1984). Wanted: A Theoretical Framework for Relating Language Proficiency to Academic Achievement Among Bilingual Students. In C. Rivera (Ed.), Language Proficiency and Academic Achievement: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Dalton, B., Morocco, C. C., Tivnan, T., & Mead, P. L. R. (1997). Supported Inquiry Science: Teaching for Conceptual Change in Urban and Suburban Science Classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(6), 670-684. doi: 10.1177/002221949703000611 De Jong, O., & Van der Valk, A. E. (2007). Science Teachers' PCK and Teaching Practice: Learning to Scaffold Students' Open-Inquiry Learning. In R. Pinto & D. Couso (Eds.), Contributions from Science Education Research (pp. 107-118). Dordrecht: Springer. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Self-Determination Theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), The Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 416-438): SAGE Publications Ltd. Dickhäuser, O., Schöne, C., Spinath, B., & Stiensmeier-Pelster, J. (2002). Die Skalen zum akademischen Selbstkonzept. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 23(4), 393-405. Duckworth, E. (2009). Helping Students Get to Where Ideas Can Find Them. The New Educator, 5, 185-188. Dumont, H., Istance, D., & Benavides, F. (Eds.). (2010). The Nature of Learning. Using Research to Inspire Practice. Paris: OECD Publishing. European Commission. (2015). Science Education for Responsible Citizenship (pp. 88). doi:10.2777/12626 15-08-24. Flick, U. (2009). An Introduction to Qualitative Research (4. ed.): Sage Publications. Franken, S. (2015). Personal: Diversity Management. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien. Furtak, E. M. (2008). The Dilemma of Guidance. An Exploration of Scientific Inquiry Teaching. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.

141

Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Studies of Inquiry-Based Science Teaching: A MetaAnalysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300-329. doi: 10.3102/0034654312457206 Gardenswartz, L., & Rowe, A. (2003). Diverse Teams at Work: Capitalizing on the Power of Diversity. Alexandria, Virginia: Society for Human Resource Management. Gay, G. (2010). Classroom practices for teaching diversity: an example from Washington State (United States). In OECD (Ed.), Educating teachers for diversity: Meeting the challenge (pp. 257-279): OECD Publishing. Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books. Geertz, C. (1987). Dichte Beschreibung: Beiträge zum Verstehen kultureller Systeme (12. ed.). Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp Verlag. Germann, P. J., Haskins, S., & Auls, S. (1996). Analysis of nine high school biology laboratory manuals: Promoting scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(5), 475-499. Gerstenmaier, J., & Mandl, H. (1995). Wissenserwerb unter konstruktivistischer Perspektive. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 41(6), 867-888. GFD. (2015). Position der Gesellschaft für Fachdidaktik zum inklusiven Unterricht unter fachdidaktischer Perspektive Retrieved 2017-04-20, from http://www.fachdidaktik.org/veroeffentlichungen/positionspapiereder-gfd/ Gibbons, P. (1998). Classroom Talk and the Learning of New Registers in a Second Language. Language and Education, 12(2), 99-118. doi: 10.1080/09500789808666742 Gläser-Zikuda, M. (2005). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse in der Lernstrategie- und Lernemotionsforschung. In P. Mayring & M. Gläser-Zikuda (Eds.), Die Praxis der Qualitativen Inhaltsanalyse (pp. 63-83). Weinheim und Basel: Beltz Verlag. Gogolin, I. (2009). "Bildungssprache" - The Importance of Teaching Language in Every School Subject. In T. Tajmel & K. Starl (Eds.), Science Education Unlimited. Approaches to Equal Opportunities in Learning Science (pp. 91-102). Münster: Waxmann. Gogolin, I. (2010). Stichwort: Mehrsprachigkeit Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 13(4), 529-547. Gogolin, I., Lange, I., Hawighorst, B., Bainski, C., Heintze, A., Rutten, S., & Saalmann, W. (Eds.). (2011). Durchgängige Sprachbildung. Qualitätsmerkmale für den Unterricht. Münster: Waxmann. Grießhaber, W. (2010). (Fach-)Sprache im zweitsprachlichen Fachunterricht. In B. Ahrenholz (Ed.), Fachunterricht und Deutsch als Zweitsprache (pp. 37-53). Tübingen: narr. 142

Gyllenpalm, J., Wickman, P.-O., & Holmgren, S.-O. (2010). Teachers' Language on Scientific Inquiry: Methods of teaching or methods of inquiry? (Vol. 32, pp. 1151 - 1172): Routledge. Hackling, M., Smith, P., & Murcia, K. (2010). Talking Science: Developing a discourse of inquiry. Teaching Science, 56(1), 17-22. Hall, E. T. (1984). The Dance of Life: The Other Dimension of Time. New York: Anchor Books. Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2005). Putting scaffolding to work: The contribution of scaffolding in articulating ESL education. Prospect, 20(1), 6-30. Herron, M. D. (1971). The Nature of Scientific Enquiry. The School Review, 79(2), 171-212. Herzog-Punzenberger, B., & Schnell, P. (2012). Die Situation mehrsprachiger Schüler/innen im österreichischen Schulsystem - Problemlagen, Rahmenbedingungen und internationaler Vergleich. In B. HerzogPunzenberger (Ed.), Nationaler Bildungsbericht Österreich 2012, Band 2: Fokussierte Analysen bildungspolitischer Schwerpunktthemen. Graz: Leykam. Herzog-Punzenberger, B., & Unterwurzacher, A. (2009). Migration Interkulturalität - Mehrsprachigkeit. Erste Befunde für das österreichische Bildungswesen. In W. Specht (Ed.), Nationaler Bildungsbericht Österreich 2009. Band 2: Fokussierte Analysen bildungspolitischer Schwerpunktthemen (pp. 161-182). Graz: Leykam. Hewson, P. W., Kahle, J. B., Scantlebury, K., & Davies, D. (2001). Equitable Science Education in Urban Middle Schools: Do Reform Efforts Make a Difference? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(10), 1130-1144. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2006). Goals and Strategies of a Problem-based Learning Facilitator. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 21-39. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Golan Duncan, R., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107. Hofer, E., Lembens, A., & Abels, S. (2016). Enquiry-based science education in austrian teacher professional development courses. In I. Eilks & B. Ralle (Eds.), Science education research and practical work (pp. 271-277). Aachen, Germany: Shaker. Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and Organizations. Software of the Mind. Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival (2nd ed.): McGraw-Hill.

143

Holliday, A. (2003). Social Autonomy: Addressing the Dangers of Culturism in TESOL. In D. Palfreyman & R. C. Smith (Eds.), Learner Autonomy across Cultures. Language Education Perspectives (pp. 110-126). Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Hornberger, N. H. (2002). Multilingual language policies and the continua of biliteracy. An ecological approach. Language Policy, 1, 27-51. Industriellenvereinigung. (2013). MINT2020. Zahlen, Daten & Fakten. Retrieved from https://www.iv.at/media/filer_public/2e/d5/2ed59f81f7e7-4ebd-9339-1c0004934f0b/file_610.pdf Retrieved 2017-03-24 Jäger, A. O. (1982). Mehrmodale Klassifikation von Intelligenzleistungen: Experimentkontrollierte Weiterentwicklung des deskriptiven Intelligenzstrukturmodells. Diagnostica, 18, 195-225. Keller, R. (2009). Das interpretative Paradigma. In D. Brock, M. Junge, H. Diefenbach, R. Keller & D. Villányi (Eds.), Soziologische Paradigmen nach Talcott Parsons. Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and InquiryBased Teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. Korthagen, F. A. J., & Kessels, J. P. A. M. (1999). Linking Theory and Practice: Changing the Pedagogy of Teacher Education. Educational Researcher, 28(4). doi: DOI:10.3102/0013189X28004004 Krainer, K., & Benke, G. (2009). Mathematik - Naturwissenschaften Informationstechnologie: Neue Wege in Unterricht und Schule?! In W. Specht (Ed.), Nationaler Bildungsbericht Österreich 2009. Band 2. Graz: Leykam. Krell, G., Riedmüller, B., Sieben, B., & Vinz, D. (2007). Diversity Studies als integrierende Forschungsrichtung. In G. Krell, B. Riemüller, B. Sieben & D. Vinz (Eds.), Diversity Studies. Grundlagen und disziplinäre Ansätze. Frankfurt/Main: Campus. Lamnek, S. (2010). Qualitative Sozialforschung (5. ed.). Weinheim, Basel: Beltz Verlag. Langer, E. (2010). Spracherwerb im Naturwissenschaftsunterricht in Klassen mit Migrationshintergrund. In G. Fenkart, A. Lembens & E. ErlacherZeitlinger (Eds.), Sprache, Mathematik und Naturwissenschaften (pp. 89107). Innsbruck: StudienVerlag. Lederman, J. S., Lederman, N. G., Bartos, S. A., Bartels, S. L., Antink Meyer, A., & Schwartz, R. S. (2014). Meaningful Assessment of Learners' Understandings About Scientific Inquiry - The Views About Scientific

144

Inquiry (VASI) Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(1), 65-83. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of Science: Past, Present, and Future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 831-880). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lederman, N. G. (2008). What did you do in science today? In E. Abrams, S. A. Southerland & P. Silva (Eds.), Inquiry in the classroom. Realities and Opportunities (pp. 25-35). Charlotte, North Carolina: Information Age Publishing. Lederman, N. G., Lederman, J. S., & Antink, A. (2013). Nature of Science and Scientific Inquiry as Contexts for the Learning of Science and Achievement of Scientific Literacy. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1(3), 138-147. Lee, O. (2002). Promoting Scientific Inquiry with Elementary Students from Diverse Cultures and Languages. Review of Research in Education, 26, 23-69. Lee, O. (2005). Science Education With English Language Learners: Synthesis and Research Agenda. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 491-530. Lee, O., Buxton, C., Lewis, S., & LeRoy, K. (2006). Science inquiry and student diversity: Enhanced abilities and continuing difficulties after an instructional intervention. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(7), 607-636. doi: 10.1002/tea.20141 Lee, O., & Fradd, S. H. (1998). Science for All, Including Students From NonEnglish-Language Backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 27(4), 12-21. doi: 10.3102/0013189x027004012 Lembens, A., & Rehm, M. (2010). Chemie und Demokratielernen - zwei unvereinbare Welten? In R. Krammer & C. Kühberger (Eds.), Politische Bildung: Möglichkeiten zur Umsetzung des Unterrichtsprinzips im Fächerkanon der AHS und der Hauptschulen (Vol. 4, , pp. 281-302). Innsbruck: Studienverlag. Luciak, M. (2010). On diversity in educational contexts. In OECD (Ed.), Educating teachers for diversity. Meeting the challenge (pp. 41-62): OECD Publishing. Lynch, S., Kuipers, J., Pyke, C., & Szesze, M. (2005). Examining the effects of a highly rated science curriculum unit on diverse students: Results from a planning grant. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(8), 912-946. doi: 10.1002/tea.20080 Maas, U. (2005). Sprache und Sprachen in der Migration im Einwanderungsland Deutschland. In U. Maas (Ed.), Themenheft: Sprache und Migraton (pp.

145

89-133). Osnabrück: Institut für Migrationsforschung und Interkulturelle Studien (IMIS). Magee, D., & Meier, A. J. (2011). Science Education and Culture: InquiryBased Learning. Journal of Intercultural Communication, (27). Retrieved from http://www.immi.se/intercultural/nr27/magee.htm Retrieved 201506-09 Mamlok-Naaman, R., Abels, S., & Markic, S. (2015). Learning about relevance concerning cultural and gender differences in chemistry education. In I. Eilks & A. Hofstein (Eds.), Relevant Chemistry Education - From Theory to Practice (pp. 219-240). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Markic, S. (2012a). Lesson plans for student language heterogeneity for the topic "matter and its properties". In C. Bruguière, A. Tiberghien, P. Clément, D. Psillos & R. M. Sperandeo (Eds.), EBook Proceedings of the ESERA 2011 CONFERENCE. Science Learning and Citizenship. Part 3: Teaching and learning science. Lyon, France. Markic, S. (2012b). Umgang mit sprachlicher Heterogenität im naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht Konzepte fachdidaktischer Strukturierung für den Unterricht. Markic, S., & Abels, S. (2013). Die Fachsprache der Chemie. Ein gemeinsames Anliegen von heterogenen Klassen. Naturwissenschaften im Unterricht Chemie, 24(135), 10-14. Markic, S., & Abels, S. (2014). Heterogeneity and Diversity - A Growing Challenge or Enrichment for Science Education in German Schools? EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10(4), 271-283. doi: 10.12973/eurasia.2014.1082a Markic, S., Broggy, J., & Childs, P. (2013). How to Deal with Linguistic Issues in Chemistry Classes. In I. Eilks & A. Hofstein (Eds.), Teaching Chemistry – A Studybook (pp. 127-152): SensePublishers. Markic, S., & Childs, P. (2016). Language and the teaching and learning of chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(3), 434-438. doi: 10.1039/c6rp90006b Martin-Hansen, L. (2002). Defining Inquiry. The Science Teacher, 69(2), 34-37. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Butcher, K. (1997). HOW EFFECTIVE IS INQUIRY LEARNING FOR STUDENTS WITH MILD DISABILITIES? The Journal of Special Education, 31(2), 199-211. doi: 10.1177/002246699703100203 Mayring, P. (2008). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. (10. ed.). Weinheim und Basel: Beltz Verlag Mayring, P. (2010). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken (enhanced and revised 11. ed.). Weinheim: Beltz.

146

Meijer, C. J. W. (2010). Special Needs Education in Europe: Inclusive Policies and Practices. Zeitschrift für Inklusion(2). Metz, K. E. (2004). Children's Understanding fo Scientific Inquiry: Their Conceptualization of Uncertainty in Investigations of Their Own Design. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 219-290. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King's College London, School of Education. Miller, K. J., Koury, K. A., Fitzgerald, G. E., Hollingsead, C., Mitchem, K. J., Tsai, H.-H., & Park, M. K. (2009). Concept Mapping as a Research Tool to Evaluate Conceptual Change Related to Instructional Methods. Teacher Education and Special Education, 32(4), 365-378. Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction—what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474-496. doi: 10.1002/tea.20347 Müller, A., & Stanat, P. (2006). Schulischer Erfolg von Schülerinnen und Schülern mit Migrationshintergrund: Analysen zur Situation von Zuwanderern aus der ehemaligen Sowjetunion und aus der Türkei. In J. Baumert, P. Stanat & R. Watermann (Eds.), Herkunftsbedingte Disparitäten im Bildungswesen: Differenzielle Bildungsprozesse und Probleme der Verteilungsgerechtigkeit (pp. 221-255): VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Müller, F. H., Krainer, K., & Haidinger, W. (2013). MINT 2020. Der Unterricht from von morgen. Retrieved https://www.iv.at/media/filer_public/a6/12/a6124a4a-131e-43f0-8e6eb57211a71ac8/file_609.pdf Retrieved 2017-03-24 National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. A Guide for Teaching and Learning: National Research Council. National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington DC: The National Academies Press. Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom. Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 133-144.

147

Norman, K., Caseau, D., & Stefanich, G. P. (1998). Teaching Students with Disabilities in Inclusive Science Classrooms: Survey Results. Science Education, 82(2), 127-146. O'Donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. F., & Hall, R. H. (2002). Knowledge Maps as Scaffolds for Cognitive Processing. [journal article]. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 71-86. doi: 10.1023/a:1013132527007 OECD. (2000). Measuring Student Knowledge and Skills. The PISA 2000 Assessment of Reading, Mathematical and Scientific Literacy. Paris: OECD. OECD. (2005). Student questionnaire for PISA 2006 Retrieved 2017-06-01, from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/database-pisa2006.htm OECD. (2006). Assessing Scientific, Reading and Mathematical Literacy. A Framework for PISA 2006. Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD. (2009). PISA 2006 Technical Report: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). OECD. (2010a). PISA 2009 at a Glance Retrieved 2017-06-01, from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/pisa-at-a-glance2010_9789264095298-en OECD. (2010b). PISA 2009 Ergebnisse: Was Schülerinnen und Schüler wissen und können: Schülerleistungen in Lesekompetenz, Mathematik und Naturwissenschaften (Band 1), : W. Bertelsmann Verlag, Germany. OECD. (2014). PISA 2012 Results: Creative Problem Solving: Students' Skills in Tackling Real-Life Problems (Volume V): PISA, OECD Publishing. Ogunniyi, M. B. (1988). Adapting western science to traditional African culture. International Journal of Science Education, 10(1), 1-9. doi: 10.1080/0950069880100101 Oliveira, A. W., Akerson, V. L., Colak, H., Pongsanon, K., & Genel, A. (2012). The Implicit Communication of Nature of Science and Epistemology During Inquiry Discussion. Science Education, 96(4), 652-684. Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What “ideas-about-science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692-720. doi: 10.1002/tea.10105 Patton, J. R., & Andre, K. E. (1989). Individualizing for science and social studies. In J. W. Wood (Ed.), Mainstreaming: A practical approach for teachers (pp. 301-351). Columbus, OH: Merrill. Puddu, S., Keller, E., & Lembens, A. (2012). Potentials of Lernwerkstatt (openinquiry) for pre-service teachers’ professional development. In C. Bruguière, A. Tiberghien, P. Clément, D. Psillos & R. M. Sperandeo (Eds.), EBook Proceedings of the ESERA 2011 CONFERENCE. Science

148

Learning and Citizenship. Part 12: Pre-service science teacher education (pp. 149-155). Lyon, France. Puddu, S., & Koliander, B. (2013). Diversität beim Forschenden Lernen Berücksichtigung von Migration und Alter im Chemieunterricht. Naturwissenschaften im Unterricht Chemie, 24(135), 26-30. Puddu, S., Koliander, B., & Lembens, A. (2012). Including Inquiry-based Learning into a Chemistry Class Concerning the Diversity Dimensions “Age” and “Language”. In S. Markic, I. Eilks, D. di Fuccia & B. Ralle (Eds.), Issues of Heterogeneity and Cultural Diversity in Science Education and Science Education Research. A collection of invited papers inspired by the 21st symposium on chemical and science education held at the University of Dortmund 2012, May 17-19, 2012 (pp. 195-199). Aachen: Shaker. Puddu, S., & Lembens, A. (2013). Einführung von Inquiry-based Learning in einer Klasse mit hoher Diversität. In S. Bernholt (Ed.), Inquiry-based Learning - Forschendes Lernen. Gesellschaft für Didaktik der Chemie und Physik. Jahrestagung in Hannover 2012 (pp. 368-388). Kiel: IPN. Puddu, S., & Lembens, A. (2015). Scaffolding bei der Einführung Forschenden Lernens. In S. Bernholt (Ed.), Heterogenität und Diversität - Vielfalt der Voraussetzungen im naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht. Gesellschaft für Didaktik der Chemie und Physik. Jahrestagung in Bremen 2014 (pp. 8587). Kiel: IPN. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., Kyza, E., Edelson, D., & Soloway, E. (2004). A Scaffolding Design Framework for Software to Support Science Inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337-386. Rauch, D. P., Jurecka, A., & Hesse, H.-G. (2010). Für den Drittspracherwerb zählt auch die Lesekompetenz in der Herkunftssprache. Untersuchung der Türkisch-, Deutsch- und Englisch-Lesekompetenz bei Deutsch-Türkisch bilingualen Schülern. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik (55. Beiheft), 78-100. Reich, H. H., & Roth, H.-J. (2002). Spracherwerb zweisprachig aufwachsender Kinder und Jugendlicher. Ein Überblick über den Stand der nationalen und internationalen Forschung. Retrieved from http://www.hamburg.de/contentblob/69654/data/bbs-hr-spracherwerbzweisprachigkeit-11-02.pdf Retrieved 2014-10-28 Reich, K. (2014). Inklusive Didaktik. Bausteine für eine inklusive Schule. Weinheim und Basel: Beltz Verlag. Reinmann, G., & Mandl, H. (2006). Unterrichten und Lernumgebungen gestalten. In A. Krapp & B. Weidenmann (Eds.), Pädagogische Psychologie (5 ed., pp. 613-658): Beltz Psychologie Verlags Union.

149

Riebling, L. (2013). Sprachbildung im naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht. Eine Studie im Kontext migrationsbedingter sprachlicher Heterogenität. Münster: Waxmann. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific Literacy / Science Literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 729-780). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., Wallberg-Henriksson, H., & Hemmo, V. (2007). Science Education Now: A Renewed Pedagogy for the Future of Europe. Retrieved 2017-06-01 http://ec.europa.eu/research/sciencesociety/document_library/pdf_06/report-rocard-on-scienceeducation_en.pdf Rösch, H. (2009). German as a Second Language - Linguistic and Didactic Foundations. In T. Tajmel & K. Starl (Eds.), Science Education Unlimited. Approaches to Equal Opportunities in Learning Science (pp. 149-167). Münster/New York: Waxmann. Rosenthal, G. (2011). Interpretative Sozialforschung. Eine Einführung (3. ed.). Weinheim, München: Juventa. Rosselli, M., & Ardila, A. (2003). The impact of culture and education on nonverbal neuropsychological measurements: A critical review. Brain and Cognition, 52(3), 326-333. Roth, W.-M., & Welzel, M. (2001). From Activity to Gestures and Scientific Language. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 103-136. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. Ryle, G. (2009). Collected Essays 1929-1968. London, New York: Routledge. Sawyer, K. R. (2006). Introduction: The New Science of Learning. In K. R. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 118). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schwab, J. J. (1962). The Teaching of Science as Enquiry. In J. J. Schwab & P. F. Brandwein (Eds.), The Teaching of Science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Schwantner, U., & Schreiner, C. (Eds.). (2010). PISA 2009. Internationaler Vergleich von Schülerleistungen. Erste Ergebnisse. Lesen, Mathematik, Naturwissenschaft: Leykam. Schwartz, R., Lederman, N., & Lederman, J. S. (2008, March 30-April 2, 2008). An Instrument To Assess Views Of Scientific Inquiry: The VOSI Questionnaire. Paper presented at the International Conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Baltimore, MD.

150

Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & Boon, R. (1998). Science Education for Students with Disabilities: a Review of Recent Research. Studies in Science Education, 32, 21-44. Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & Okolo, C. M. (2008). Science and Social Studies for Students with Disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 41(2), 1-24. Shaules, J. (2007). Deep Culture: The Hidden Challenges of Global Living: Multilingual matters. Sjøberg, S., & Schreiner, C. (2010). The ROSE project. An overview and key findings. Retrieved from http://roseproject.no/network/countries/norway/eng/nor-SjobergSchreiner-overview-2010.pdf 2014-03-11. Sliwka, A. (2010). From homogeneity to diversity in German education. In OECD (Ed.), Educating Teachers for Diversity: Meeting the Challenge (pp. 205-217): OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264079731-12-en. Stanat, P., & Edele, A. (2011). Migration und soziale Ungleichheit. In H. Reinders, H. Ditton, C. Gräsel & B. Gniewosz (Eds.), Empirische Bildungsforschung. Gegenstandsbereiche (pp. 181-192). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Statistik Austria. (2014). Wanderungen mit dem Ausland. Aussenwanderungen 2005 2014 nach Staatsangehörigkeit. Retrieved from http://www.statistik.at/web_de/statistiken/menschen_und_gesellschaft/bev oelkerung/wanderungen/wanderungen_mit_dem_ausland_aussenwanderu ngen/index.html Retrieved 2015-10-27 Stewart, E. C., & Bennet, M. J. (1991). American cultural patterns. A crosscultural perspective. Boston, MA: Intercultural Press. Sweller, J. (2006). How the Human Cognitive System Deals with Complexity. In J. Elen & C. R. E. (Eds.), Handling Complexity in Learning Environments. Theory and Research (pp. 13-25). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Tajmel, T., Starl, K., & Schön, L.-H. (2009). Detect the Barriers and Leave Them Behind - Science Education in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Classrooms. In T. Tajmel & K. Starl (Eds.), Science Education Unlimited. Approaches to equal opportunities in Learning Science (pp. 67-84). Münster/New York: Waxmann. Tazi-Preve, I. M., Kytir, J., Lebhart, G., & Münz, R. (1999). Bevölkerung in Österreich. Demographische Trends, politische Rahmenbedingungen, entwicklungspolitische Aspekte. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

151

Tobin, K., & Gallagher, J. J. (1987). What happens in high school science classrooms? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(6), 549-560. Trundle, K. C. (2008). Inquiry-based Science Instruction for Students With Disabilities. In J. Luft, R. L. Bell & J. Gess-Newsome (Eds.), Science as Inquiry in the Secondary Setting. Alington, Virginia: NSTA press. UNESCO. (1990). World Declaration on Education for All. Meeting Basic Learning Needs Retrieved 2017-05-20, from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0008/000862/086291eb.pdf UNESCO. (1993). Project 2000+. International Forum on Scientific and Technological Literacy for All. Final Report (pp. 129). Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Oranization. van der Valk, T., & de Jong, O. (2009). Scaffolding Science Teachers in Openinquiry Teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 31(6), 829850. van Zee, E., & Minstrell, J. (1997). Using Questioning to Guide Student Thinking. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(2), 227-269. Vertovec, S. (2006). The Emergence of Super-Diversity in Britain. COMPAS working papers, No. 06-25. Oxford: University, Centre of Migration, Policy and Society. Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6), 1024-1054. doi: 10.1080/01419870701599465 Vertovec, S. (2009). Conceiving and Researching Diversity. Working Papers, No. 09-01. Göttingen: Max-Planck-Institute for Religious and Ethnic Diversity. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Mind and Society (pp. 79-91). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Weiß, R. H. (2006). CFT 20-R Grundintelligenztest Skala 2 - Revision. Göttingen: Hogrefe. Wellington, J. J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education: Open University Press. Westermann, R. (2017). Methoden psychologischer Forschung und Evaluation. Grundlagen, Gütekriterien und Anwendungen. Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer. Wilson, C. D., Taylor, J. A., Kowalski, S. M., & Carlson, J. (2010). The Relative Effects and Equity of Inquiry-Based and Commonplace Science Teaching on Students' Knowledge, Reasoning, and Argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(3), 276-301. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research. Design and Methods (4 ed. Vol. 5): SAGE Publications, Inc. Yore, L., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science 152

research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689-725. doi: 10.1080/09500690305018 Zilker, I. (2008). Views about Scientific Inquiry Questionnaire VOSI. Version VOSI-S. German Version.

153

Abstract In order to participate actively in a modern world it is necessary to make decisions concerning scientific issues. Therefore, it is important to develop scientific skills and methods which have a solid foundation in science education standards and the curricula. Empirical research shows the potential of inquirybased learning to foster these skills and methods as well as to meet the needs of diversity in the classroom. Inquiry-based learning is seen as a challenge, especially in classrooms with a high diversity, and therefore it is rarely implemented. Professional development programs are needed to further the implementation of inquiry-based learning. Designing appropriate programs requires information about authentic classroom situations. The thesis at hand contributes to this by collecting data throughout the course of an explorative case study. A teacher was accompanied for one year while implementing inquiry-based learning in a class with a high diversity. The observations focused on scaffolding as well as on dealing with diversity. Additionally, data compiling students’ views of scientific inquiry were gathered. Data from audio and video recordings, task sheets, lab reports as well as interviews and questionnaires were analyzed via qualitative content analysis and descriptive statistics. A thick description was made to paint a vivid picture of this highly diverse classroom and to answer the research questions. The teachers’ strategies for scaffolding while implementing inquiry-based learning in this classroom were illustrated. The views of scientific inquiry were discussed on both the class level and the individual level. Finally, the methods for collecting data are discussed critically with regard to diversity. Furthermore, possibilities for being mindful of diversity when implementing inquiry-based learning are suggested. These findings can be used to develop materials for classes with a high diversity as well as for professional development programs which aim to sensitize and to support teachers.

154

Zusammenfassung Um in einer modernen Welt entscheidungs- und handlungsfähig zu sein, bedarf es einer naturwissenschaftlichen Grundbildung. Diese ist in Bildungsstandards und Lehrplänen in Form von naturwissenschaftlichen Denk- und Arbeitsweisen verankert. Wie Forschungsergebnisse zeigen, stellt Forschendes Lernen eine Möglichkeit dar Kompetenzen in diesem Bereich zu entwickeln und auf die Diversität der SchülerInnen einzugehen. Forschendes Lernen, speziell in Klassen mit hoher Diversität, wird als große Herausforderung angesehen und kaum implementiert. Um den Einsatz von Forschendem Lernen zu fördern, gilt es, Lehrpersonen durch entsprechende Fortbildungsangebote zu unterstützen. Zur Gestaltung dieser braucht es Erkenntnisse aus realen Unterrichtssituationen. Die vorliegende Arbeit trägt dazu bei, indem Daten im Zuge einer explorativen Fallstudie erhoben wurden. Dazu wurde eine Lehrperson ein Jahr lang bei der Umsetzung von Forschendem Lernen in einer Klasse mit hoher Diversität begleitet, wobei der Fokus auf der Lernbegleitung sowie dem Umgang mit Diversität lag. Zusätzlich wurden Daten zu den Sichtweisen der SchülerInnen über die Natur der naturwissenschaftlichen Forschung generiert. Die Daten aus Audio- und Videoaufnahmen, Versuchsanleitungen, Laborprotokollen sowie Interviews und Fragebögen werden durch qualitative Inhaltsanalyse und beschreibende Statistik analysiert. Um ein lebendiges Bild des Unterrichts zu zeichnen und die Forschungsfragen zu beantworten, werden die Ergebnisse in Form einer dichten Beschreibung dargestellt. Dabei werden die Strategien der Lernbegleitung zur Einführung von Forschendem Lernen unter Berücksichtigung der Diversität beleuchtet. Die Sichtweisen über naturwissenschaftliche Forschung werden anhand eines Fragebogens auf Klassen- sowie auf SchülerInnenebene diskutiert. Abschließend werden die verwendeten Erhebungsmethoden im Hinblick auf Diversität kritisch betrachtet und Möglichkeiten zum Umgang mit Diversität bei der Implementierung von Forschendem Lernen aufgezeigt. Mit Hilfe der gewonnenen Erkenntnisse können Unterrichtsmaterialien für Klassen mit hoher Diversität gestaltet und entsprechende Fortbildungskonzepte zur Sensibilisierung und Unterstützung von Lehrpersonen entwickelt werden.

155

List of Figures and Tables List of Figures

Figure 1: Idealized inquiry cycle (translated by the author) (Abels, Puddu, & Lembens, 2014, p. 40) ......................................................................................... 15 Figure 2: Three dimensional model of the Austrian Science Standards for vocational schools with higher education entrance qualification [translated by the author] (bmukk, 2009, p. 7) ........................................................................... 18 Figure 3: Levels of inquiry (Buck et al., 2008, p. 54) ......................................... 24 Figure 4: Framework for inquiry by Germann et al. (1996, p. 481) ................... 25 Figure 5: Diversity wheel (Gardenswartz & Rowe, 2003, p. 33) ....................... 33 Figure 6: Position of the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978) within the range of demand ............................................................................................ 46 Figure 7: Sample question of the PISA 2006 students questionnaire (OECD, 2005) with the scale used in the German translation [retranslated by the author] ............................................................................................................................. 59 Figure 8: Example for a Level 0 task; section of the task “Gilding of a cent coin” ............................................................................................................................. 62 Figure 9: Example of a level 1 task; section of the task: “What material does the 2 cent coins consist of?” (TS 20111107) ............................................................ 63 Figure 10: Example of a level 1 task: “What has higher mass?” (TS20111010) 64 Figure 11: Example for a level 2 task “How can you differentiate between deionized water and salt water?” (TS20111128) [translated by the author] (Puddu & Koliander, 2013, p. 30) ....................................................................... 65 Figure 12: Process model of forming inductive categories (translated from Mayring, 2008, p. 75) .......................................................................................... 66 Figure 13: Four categories of scaffolding ........................................................... 67 Figure 14: The eight steps of the scaled structuring according to Mayring (2008, p. 93) .................................................................................................................... 69 Figure 15: Task sheet “Who has forged this check?” ......................................... 74 Figure 16: Age distribution of the class at the beginning of the school year [year;month] ........................................................................................................ 76 Figure 17: subject related self-concept of male and female students ................. 81 Figure 18: Students’ IQ test results ..................................................................... 82 Figure 19: The four phases during the school year. ............................................ 85 Figure 20: The duration of the phases. (Relationship between the number of lessons and the phase.) ........................................................................................ 88 Figure 21: Categories of scaffolding ................................................................... 89

156

Figure 22: Categories of scaffolding, main category “Language” with its subcategories is highlighted [translated by the author] (Puddu & Lembens, 2015, p. 86) ........................................................................................................................ 89 Figure 23: Experiment “Analysis of colorants” (TS20111010).......................... 90 Figure 24: Experiment “Analysis of colorants” ctd. (TS20111010)................... 91 Figure 25: Blank lab report [translated by the author] ........................................ 94 Figure 26: Task sheet “analysis of colorants – felt-tip pen” [translated by the author].................................................................................................................. 95 Figure 27: Sample chart (TS20120123_chemical_reactions) ............................. 96 Figure 28: Categories of scaffolding, main category “to do inquiry” with its subcategories is highlighted ...................................................................................... 97 Figure 29 Categories of scaffolding, main category “learning about inquiry” . 102 Figure 30: Categories of scaffolding, main category “content learning” ......... 103 Figure 31: Task sheet: “Does an ice cube melt or dissolve in water” [translated by the author] (Puddu & Koliander, 2013, p. 28) ............................................. 106 Figure 32: Experiments: “Melting of chocolate” and “Dissolving of potassium permanganate” (Puddu & Koliander, 2013, p. 27)............................................ 107 Figure 33: Visual support for the task “dissolving of sodium chloride” (Puddu & Koliander, 2013, p. 29)...................................................................................... 107 Figure 34: Summary of the first VOSI questionnaire ....................................... 110 Figure 35: Summary of the second VOSI questionnaire .................................. 111 Figure 36: Distribution of the answers into the categories for both dates of the usage of the VOSI questionnaire....................................................................... 112 Figure 37: Comparison between the first and the second VOSI questionnaire 113 Figure 38: Transfer of answers in the category „Multiple methods of scientific investigation“..................................................................................................... 114 Figure 39: Transfer of answers in the category “Justification of scientific knowledge” ........................................................................................................ 115 Figure 40: Transfer of answers in the category „Community of practice“ ....... 115

157

List of Tables

Table 1: The levels of inquiry (Blanchard et al., 2010, p. 581) .......................... 21 Table 2: Assemblage of Abrams’ (2008) and Bonnstetter’s (1998) levels of inquiry published in Puddu, Keller & Lembens (2012, p. 150) .......................... 23 Table 3: Essential Features of Classroom Inquiry and its Variations (National Research Council, 2000, p. 29) ........................................................................... 26 Table 4: Timetable of the questionnaires used .................................................... 56 Table 5: Results of the items regarding “attitudes towards science” (OECD, 2005) and “subject related self-concept” (Dickhäuser et al., 2002) ................... 80 Table 6: Overview of the tasks during the school year. ...................................... 85 Table 7: Overview about the lesson on melting and dissolving [translated by the author] (Puddu & Koliander, 2013, p. 27) ........................................................ 105 Table 8: Summary of the VOSI questionnaire at the beginning of the school year ........................................................................................................................... 109 Table 9: Summary of the VOSI questionnaire completed in June.................... 110 Table 10: Dana’s results on the “Views of scientific inquiry” questionnaire (Abels & Puddu, 2014, p. 127).......................................................................... 117 Table 11: Lija’s results on the “Views of scientific inquiry” questionnaire ..... 119 Table 12: Melina’s results on the “Views of scientific inquiry” questionnaire 122 Table 13: Dimitrij’s results onthe „Views of scientific inquiry” questionnaire 124

158

Appendix

Appendix 1: Coding Manual – Scaffolding Coding unit:at least one picture and at least 2 words. Unit of context: whole conversation during the observed situation considering the level of inquiry. The scoring unit describes the order in which the material is coded. There is no necessary order in the artefacts, but the artefact itself is encoded from beginning to end.

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

Appendix 2: Coding Manual – “Views of Scientific Inquiry” The coding unit describes the smallest unit of the material which is allowed to be coded. I decided on coding at least two words. The unit of context consists of the answers to the first questionnaire for the coding of the first questionnaire. For the second questionnaire, the answers to the questions as well as the answers of the interview (if available) are part of the unit of context. The first questionnaire was not taken into consideration for the coding of the second one. Each question provided the unit of context for the related answer. If a question was divided into “a” and “b” both was considered for interpretation and better understanding. The scoring unit describes the order in which the material is coded. In my case the questions were coded successively from question one to five from the first questionnaire from all students, and then the second questionnaires were coded similarly to get a valuation of both measuring dates. The data basis of the second questionnaire is enriched by the data of the interviews. Those data is inserted into the material but clearly labeled. After that the comparison of both dates (at the beginning and the end of the school year) took place.

The description of the main categories were derived from Schwartz, Lederman & Lederman (2008) and from the NRC(2000). The description of the informed, transitional and naïve views were made by the author.

167

168

169

170

171

Bisher erschienene B¨ande der Reihe Studien zum Physik- und Chemielernen“ ” ISSN 1614-8967

(vormals Studien zum Physiklernen ISSN 1435-5280)

1

Helmut Fischler, Jochen Peuckert (Hrsg.): Concept Mapping in fachdidaktischen Forschungsprojekten der Physik und Chemie ISBN 978-3-89722-256-4 40.50 EUR

2

Anja Schoster: Bedeutungsentwicklungsprozesse beim L¨osen algorithmischer Physikaufgaben. Eine Fallstudie zu Lernprozessen von Sch¨ulern im Physiknachhilfeunterricht w¨ahrend der Bearbeitung algorithmischer Physikaufgaben ISBN 978-3-89722-045-4 40.50 EUR

3

Claudia von Aufschnaiter: Bedeutungsentwicklungen, Interaktionen und situatives Erleben beim Bearbeiten physikalischer Aufgaben ISBN 978-3-89722-143-7 40.50 EUR

4

Susanne Haeberlen: Lernprozesse im Unterricht mit Wasserstromkreisen. Eine Fallstudie in der Sekundarstufe I ISBN 978-3-89722-172-7 40.50 EUR ¨ Kerstin Haller: Uber den Zusammenhang von Handlungen und Zielen. Eine empirische Untersuchung zu Lernprozessen im physikalischen Praktikum ISBN 978-3-89722-242-7 40.50 EUR

5

6

Michaela Horstendahl: Motivationale Orientierungen im Physikunterricht ISBN 978-3-89722-227-4 50.00 EUR

7

Stefan Deylitz: Lernergebnisse in der Quanten-Atomphysik. Evaluation des Bremer Unterrichtskonzepts ISBN 978-3-89722-291-5 40.50 EUR

8

Lorenz Hucke: Handlungsregulation und Wissenserwerb in traditionellen und computergest¨ utzten Experimenten des physikalischen Praktikums ISBN 978-3-89722-316-5 50.00 EUR

9

Heike Theyßen: Ein Physikpraktikum f¨ ur Studierende der Medizin. Darstellung der Entwicklung und Evaluation eines adressatenspezifischen Praktikums nach dem Modell der Didaktischen Rekonstruktion ISBN 978-3-89722-334-9 40.50 EUR

10

Annette Schick: Der Einfluß von Interesse und anderen selbstbezogenen Kognitionen auf Handlungen im Physikunterricht. Fallstudien zu Interessenhandlungen im Physikunterricht ISBN 978-3-89722-380-6 40.50 EUR

11

Roland Berger: Moderne bildgebende Verfahren der medizinischen Diagnostik. Ein Weg zu interessanterem Physikunterricht ISBN 978-3-89722-445-2 40.50 EUR

12

Johannes Werner: Vom Licht zum Atom. Ein Unterrichtskonzept zur Quantenphysik unter Nutzung des Zeigermodells ISBN 978-3-89722-471-1 40.50 EUR

13

Florian Sander: Verbindung von Theorie und Experiment im physikalischen Praktikum. Eine empirische Untersuchung zum handlungsbezogenen Vorverst¨andnis und dem Einsatz grafikorientierter Modellbildung im Praktikum ISBN 978-3-89722-482-7 40.50 EUR

14

J¨orn Gerdes: Der Begriff der physikalischen Kompetenz. Zur Validierung eines Konstruktes ISBN 978-3-89722-510-7 40.50 EUR

15

Malte Meyer-Arndt: Interaktionen im Physikpraktikum zwischen Studierenden und Betreuern. Feldstudie zu Bedeutungsentwicklungsprozessen im physikalischen Praktikum ISBN 978-3-89722-541-1 40.50 EUR

16

Dietmar H¨ottecke: Die Natur der Naturwissenschaften historisch verstehen. Fachdidaktische und wissenschaftshistorische Untersuchungen ISBN 978-3-89722-607-4 40.50 EUR

17

Gil Gabriel Mavanga: Entwicklung und Evaluation eines experimentell- und ph¨anomenorientierten Optikcurriculums. Untersuchung zu Sch¨ulervorstellungen in der Sekundarstufe I in Mosambik und Deutschland ISBN 978-3-89722-721-7 40.50 EUR

18

Meike Ute Zastrow: Interaktive Experimentieranleitungen. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Konzeptes zur Vorbereitung auf das Experimentieren mit Messger¨aten im Physikalischen Praktikum ISBN 978-3-89722-802-3 40.50 EUR

19

Gunnar Friege: Wissen und Probleml¨osen. Eine empirische Untersuchung des wissenszentrierten Probleml¨osens im Gebiet der Elektrizit¨atslehre auf der Grundlage des Experten-Novizen-Vergleichs ISBN 978-3-89722-809-2 40.50 EUR

20

Erich Starauschek: Physikunterricht nach dem Karlsruher Physikkurs. Ergebnisse einer Evaluationsstudie ISBN 978-3-89722-823-8 40.50 EUR

21

Roland Paatz: Charakteristika analogiebasierten Denkens. Vergleich von Lernprozessen in Basis- und Zielbereich ISBN 978-3-89722-944-0 40.50 EUR

22

Silke Mikelskis-Seifert: Die Entwicklung von Metakonzepten zur Teilchenvorstellung bei Sch¨ ulern. Untersuchung eines Unterrichts u ¨ber Modelle mithilfe eines Systems multipler Repr¨asentationsebenen ISBN 978-3-8325-0013-9 40.50 EUR

23

Brunhild Landwehr: Distanzen von Lehrkr¨aften und Studierenden des Sachunterrichts zur Physik. Eine qualitativ-empirische Studie zu den Ursachen ISBN 978-3-8325-0044-3 40.50 EUR

24

Lydia Murmann: Physiklernen zu Licht, Schatten und Sehen. Eine ph¨anomenografische Untersuchung in der Primarstufe ISBN 978-3-8325-0060-3 40.50 EUR

25

Thorsten Bell: Strukturprinzipien der Selbstregulation. Komplexe Systeme, Elementarisierungen und Lernprozessstudien f¨ur den Unterricht der Sekundarstufe II ISBN 978-3-8325-0134-1 40.50 EUR

26

Rainer M¨ uller: Quantenphysik in der Schule ISBN 978-3-8325-0186-0 40.50 EUR

27

Jutta Roth: Bedeutungsentwicklungsprozesse von Physikerinnen und Physikern in den Dimensionen Komplexit¨at, Zeit und Inhalt ISBN 978-3-8325-0183-9 40.50 EUR

28

Andreas Saniter: Spezifika der Verhaltensmuster fortgeschrittener Studierender der Physik ISBN 978-3-8325-0292-8 40.50 EUR

29

Thomas Weber: Kumulatives Lernen im Physikunterricht. Eine vergleichende Untersuchung in Unterrichtsg¨angen zur geometrischen Optik ISBN 978-3-8325-0316-1 40.50 EUR ¨ Markus Rehm: Uber die Chancen und Grenzen moralischer Erziehung im naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht ISBN 978-3-8325-0368-0 40.50 EUR

30

31

Marion Budde: Lernwirkungen in der Quanten-Atom-Physik. Fallstudien u ¨ber Resonanzen zwischen Lernangeboten und Sch¨ulerInnen-Vorstellungen ISBN 978-3-8325-0483-0 40.50 EUR

32

Thomas Reyer: Oberfl¨achenmerkmale und Tiefenstrukturen im Unterricht. Exemplarische Analysen im Physikunterricht der gymnasialen Sekundarstufe ISBN 978-3-8325-0488-5 40.50 EUR

33

Christoph Thomas M¨ uller: Subjektive Theorien und handlungsleitende Kognitionen von Lehrern als Determinanten schulischer Lehr-Lern-Prozesse im Physikunterricht ISBN 978-3-8325-0543-1 40.50 EUR

34

Gabriela Jonas-Ahrend: Physiklehrervorstellungen zum Experiment im Physikunterricht ISBN 978-3-8325-0576-9 40.50 EUR

35

Dimitrios Stavrou: Das Zusammenspiel von Zufall und Gesetzm¨aßigkeiten in der nichtlinearen Dynamik. Didaktische Analyse und Lernprozesse ISBN 978-3-8325-0609-4 40.50 EUR

36

Katrin Engeln: Sch¨ ulerlabors: authentische, aktivierende Lernumgebungen als M¨oglichkeit, Interesse an Naturwissenschaften und Technik zu wecken ISBN 978-3-8325-0689-6 40.50 EUR

37

Susann Hartmann: Erkl¨arungsvielfalt ISBN 978-3-8325-0730-5 40.50 EUR

38

Knut Neumann: Didaktische Rekonstruktion eines physikalischen Praktikums f¨ ur Physiker ISBN 978-3-8325-0762-6 40.50 EUR

39

Michael Sp¨ath: Kontextbedingungen f¨ ur Physikunterricht an der Hauptschule. M¨oglichkeiten und Ansatzpunkte f¨ur einen fach¨ubergreifenden, handlungsorientierten und berufsorientierten Unterricht ISBN 978-3-8325-0827-2 40.50 EUR

40

J¨org Hirsch: Interesse, Handlungen und situatives Erleben von Sch¨ ulerinnen und Sch¨ ulern beim Bearbeiten physikalischer Aufgaben ISBN 978-3-8325-0875-3 40.50 EUR

41

Monika H¨ uther: Evaluation einer hypermedialen Lernumgebung zum Thema Gasgesetze. Eine Studie im Rahmen des Physikpraktikums f¨ur Studierende der Medizin ISBN 978-3-8325-0911-8 40.50 EUR

42

Maike Tesch: Das Experiment im Physikunterricht. Didaktische Konzepte und Ergebnisse einer Videostudie ISBN 978-3-8325-0975-0 40.50 EUR

43

Nina Nicolai: Skriptgeleitete Eltern-Kind-Interaktion bei Chemiehausaufgaben. Eine Evaluationsstudie im Themenbereich S¨aure-Base ISBN 978-3-8325-1013-8 40.50 EUR

44

Antje Leisner: Entwicklung von Modellkompetenz im Physikunterricht ISBN 978-3-8325-1020-6 40.50 EUR

45

Stefan Rumann: Evaluation einer Interventionsstudie zur S¨aure-Base-Thematik ISBN 978-3-8325-1027-5 40.50 EUR

46

Thomas Wilhelm: Konzeption und Evaluation eines Kinematik/Dynamik-Lehrgangs zur Ver¨anderung von Sch¨ ulervorstellungen mit Hilfe dynamisch ikonischer Repr¨asentationen und graphischer Modellbildung – mit CD-ROM ISBN 978-3-8325-1046-6 45.50 EUR

47

Andrea Maier-Richter: Computerunterst¨ utztes Lernen mit L¨osungsbeispielen in der Chemie. Eine Evaluationsstudie im Themenbereich L¨oslichkeit ISBN 978-3-8325-1046-6 40.50 EUR

48

Jochen Peuckert: Stabilit¨at und Auspr¨agung kognitiver Strukturen zum Atombegriff ISBN 978-3-8325-1104-3 40.50 EUR

49

Maik Walpuski: Optimierung von experimenteller Kleingruppenarbeit durch Strukturierungshilfen und Feedback ISBN 978-3-8325-1184-5 40.50 EUR

50

Helmut Fischler, Christiane S. Reiners (Hrsg.): Die Teilchenstruktur der Materie im Physik- und Chemieunterricht ISBN 978-3-8325-1225-5 34.90 EUR

51

Claudia Eysel: Interdisziplin¨ares Lehren und Lernen in der Lehrerbildung. Eine empirische Studie zum Kompetenzerwerb in einer komplexen Lernumgebung ISBN 978-3-8325-1238-5 40.50 EUR

52

Johannes G¨ unther: Lehrerfortbildung u ¨ber die Natur der Naturwissenschaften. Studien u ¨ber das Wissenschaftsverst¨andnis von Grundschullehrkr¨aften ISBN 978-3-8325-1287-3 40.50 EUR

53

Christoph Neugebauer: Lernen mit Simulationen und der Einfluss auf das Probleml¨osen in der Physik ISBN 978-3-8325-1300-9 40.50 EUR

54

Andreas Schnirch: Gendergerechte Interessen- und Motivationsf¨orderung im Kontext naturwissenschaftlicher Grundbildung. Konzeption, Entwicklung und Evaluation einer multimedial unterst¨utzten Lernumgebung ISBN 978-3-8325-1334-4 40.50 EUR

55

Hilde K¨oster: Freies Explorieren und Experimentieren. Eine Untersuchung zur selbstbestimmten Gewinnung von Erfahrungen mit physikalischen Ph¨anomenen im Sachunterricht ISBN 978-3-8325-1348-1 40.50 EUR

56

Eva Heran-D¨orr: Entwicklung und Evaluation einer Lehrerfortbildung zur F¨orderung der physikdidaktischen Kompetenz von Sachunterrichtslehrkr¨aften ISBN 978-3-8325-1377-1 40.50 EUR

57

Agnes Szabone Varnai: Unterst¨ utzung des Probleml¨osens in Physik durch den Einsatz von Simulationen und die Vorgabe eines strukturierten Kooperationsformats ISBN 978-3-8325-1403-7 40.50 EUR

58

Johannes Rethfeld: Aufgabenbasierte Lernprozesse in selbstorganisationsoffenem Unterricht der Sekundarstufe I zum Themengebiet ELEKTROSTATIK. Eine Feldstudie in vier 10. Klassen zu einer kartenbasierten Lernumgebung mit Aufgaben aus der Elektrostatik ISBN 978-3-8325-1416-7 40.50 EUR

59

Christian Henke: Experimentell-naturwissenschaftliche Arbeitsweisen in der Oberstufe. Untersuchung am Beispiel des HIGHSEA-Projekts in Bremerhaven ISBN 978-3-8325-1515-7 40.50 EUR

60

Lutz Kasper: Diskursiv-narrative Elemente f¨ ur den Physikunterricht. Entwicklung und Evaluation einer multimedialen Lernumgebung zum Erdmagnetismus ISBN 978-3-8325-1537-9 40.50 EUR

61

Thorid Rabe: Textgestaltung und Aufforderung zu Selbsterkl¨arungen beim Physiklernen mit Multimedia ISBN 978-3-8325-1539-3 40.50 EUR

62

Ina Glemnitz: Vertikale Vernetzung im Chemieunterricht. Ein Vergleich von traditionellem Unterricht mit Unterricht nach Chemie im Kontext ISBN 978-3-8325-1628-4 40.50 EUR

63

Erik Einhaus: Sch¨ ulerkompetenzen im Bereich W¨armelehre. Entwicklung eines Test¨ instruments zur Uberpr¨ufung und Weiterentwicklung eines normativen Modells fachbezogener Kompetenzen ISBN 978-3-8325-1630-7 40.50 EUR

64

Jasmin Neuroth: Concept Mapping als Lernstrategie. Eine Interventionsstudie zum Chemielernen aus Texten ISBN 978-3-8325-1659-8 40.50 EUR

65

Hans Gerd Hegeler-Burkhart: Zur Kommunikation von Hauptsch¨ ulerinnen und Hauptsch¨ ulern in einem handlungsorientierten und f¨acher¨ ubergreifenden Unterricht mit physikalischen und technischen Inhalten ISBN 978-3-8325-1667-3 40.50 EUR

66

Karsten Rincke: Sprachentwicklung und Fachlernen im Mechanikunterricht. Sprache und Kommunikation bei der Einf¨uhrung in den Kraftbegriff ISBN 978-3-8325-1699-4 40.50 EUR

67

Nina Strehle: Das Ion im Chemieunterricht. Alternative Sch¨ulervorstellungen und curriculare Konsequenzen ISBN 978-3-8325-1710-6 40.50 EUR

68

Martin Hopf: Problemorientierte Sch¨ ulerexperimente ISBN 978-3-8325-1711-3 40.50 EUR

69

Anne Beerenwinkel: Fostering conceptual change in chemistry classes using expository texts ISBN 978-3-8325-1721-2 40.50 EUR

70

Roland Berger: Das Gruppenpuzzle im Physikunterricht der Sekundarstufe II. Eine empirische Untersuchung auf der Grundlage der Selbstbestimmungstheorie der Motivation ISBN 978-3-8325-1732-8 40.50 EUR

71

Giuseppe Colicchia: Physikunterricht im Kontext von Medizin und Biologie. Entwicklung und Erprobung von Unterrichtseinheiten ISBN 978-3-8325-1746-5 40.50 EUR

72

Sandra Winheller: Geschlechtsspezifische Auswirkungen der Lehrer-Sch¨ uler-Interaktion im Chemieanfangsunterricht ISBN 978-3-8325-1757-1 40.50 EUR

73

Isabel Wahser: Training von naturwissenschaftlichen Arbeitsweisen zur Unterst¨ utzung experimenteller Kleingruppenarbeit im Fach Chemie ISBN 978-3-8325-1815-8 40.50 EUR

74

Claus Brell: Lernmedien und Lernerfolg - reale und virtuelle Materialien im Physikunterricht. Empirische Untersuchungen in achten Klassen an Gymnasien (Laborstudie) zum Computereinsatz mit Simulation und IBE ISBN 978-3-8325-1829-5 40.50 EUR ¨ Rainer Wackermann: Uberpr¨ ufung der Wirksamkeit eines Basismodell-Trainings f¨ ur Physiklehrer ISBN 978-3-8325-1882-0 40.50 EUR

75

76

Oliver Tepner: Effektivit¨at von Aufgaben im Chemieunterricht der Sekundarstufe I ISBN 978-3-8325-1919-3 40.50 EUR

77

Claudia Geyer: Museums- und Science-Center-Besuche im naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht aus einer motivationalen Perspektive. Die Sicht von Lehrkr¨aften und Sch¨ulerinnen und Sch¨ulern ISBN 978-3-8325-1922-3 40.50 EUR

78

Tobias Leonhard: Professionalisierung in der Lehrerbildung. Eine explorative Studie zur Entwicklung professioneller Kompetenzen in der Lehrererstausbildung ISBN 978-3-8325-1924-7 40.50 EUR

79

Alexander Kauertz: Schwierigkeitserzeugende Merkmale physikalischer Leistungstestaufgaben ISBN 978-3-8325-1925-4 40.50 EUR

80

Regina H¨ ubinger: Sch¨ uler auf Weltreise. Entwicklung und Evaluation von Lehr-/ Lernmaterialien zur F¨orderung experimentell-naturwissenschaftlicher Kompetenzen f¨ur die Jahrgangsstufen 5 und 6 ISBN 978-3-8325-1932-2 40.50 EUR

81

Christine Waltner: Physik lernen im Deutschen Museum ISBN 978-3-8325-1933-9 40.50 EUR

82

Torsten Fischer: Handlungsmuster von Physiklehrkr¨aften beim Einsatz neuer Medien. Fallstudien zur Unterrichtspraxis ISBN 978-3-8325-1948-3 42.00 EUR

83

Corinna Kieren: Chemiehausaufgaben in der Sekundarstufe I des Gymnasiums. Fragebogenerhebung zur gegenw¨artigen Praxis und Entwicklung eines optimierten Hausaufgabendesigns im Themenbereich S¨aure-Base 978-3-8325-1975-9 37.00 EUR

84

Marco Thiele: Modelle der Thermohalinen Zirkulation im Unterricht. Eine empirische Studie zur F¨orderung des Modellverst¨andnisses ISBN 978-3-8325-1982-7 40.50 EUR

85

Bernd Zinn: Physik lernen, um Physik zu lehren. Eine M¨oglichkeit f¨ur interessanteren Physikunterricht ISBN 978-3-8325-1995-7 39.50 EUR

86

Esther Klaes: Außerschulische Lernorte im naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht. Die Perspektive der Lehrkraft ISBN 978-3-8325-2006-9 43.00 EUR

87

Marita Schmidt: Kompetenzmodellierung und -diagnostik im Themengebiet Energie der Sekundarstufe I. Entwicklung und Erprobung eines Testinventars ISBN 978-3-8325-2024-3 37.00 EUR

88

Gudrun Franke-Braun: Aufgaben mit gestuften Lernhilfen. Ein Aufgabenformat zur F¨orderung der sachbezogenen Kommunikation und Lernleistung f¨ur den naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht ISBN 978-3-8325-2026-7 38.00 EUR

89

Silke Klos: Kompetenzf¨orderung im naturwissenschaftlichen Anfangsunterricht. Der Einfluss eines integrierten Unterrichtskonzepts ISBN 978-3-8325-2133-2 37.00 EUR

90

Ulrike Elisabeth Burkard: Quantenphysik in der Schule. Bestandsaufnahme, Perspektiven und Weiterentwicklungsm¨oglichkeiten durch die Implementation eines Medienservers ISBN 978-3-8325-2215-5 43.00 EUR

91

Ulrike Gromadecki: Argumente in physikalischen Kontexten. Welche Geltungsgr¨unde halten Physikanf¨anger f¨ur ¨uberzeugend? ISBN 978-3-8325-2250-6 41.50 EUR

92

J¨ urgen Bruns: Auf dem Weg zur F¨orderung naturwissenschaftsspezifischer Vorstellungen von zuk¨ unftigen Chemie-Lehrenden ISBN 978-3-8325-2257-5 43.50 EUR

93

Cornelius Marsch: R¨aumliche Atomvorstellung. Entwicklung und Erprobung eines Unterrichtskonzeptes mit Hilfe des Computers ISBN 978-3-8325-2293-3 82.50 EUR

94

Maja Br¨ uckmann: Sachstrukturen im Physikunterricht. Ergebnisse einer Videostudie ISBN 978-3-8325-2272-8 39.50 EUR

95

Sabine Fechner: Effects of Context-oriented Learning on Student Interest and Achievement in Chemistry Education ISBN 978-3-8325-2343-5 36.50 EUR

96

Clemens Nagel: eLearning im Physikalischen Anf¨angerpraktikum ISBN 978-3-8325-2355-8 39.50 EUR

97

Josef Riese: Professionelles Wissen und professionelle Handlungskompetenz von (angehenden) Physiklehrkr¨aften ISBN 978-3-8325-2376-3 39.00 EUR

98

Sascha Bernholt: Kompetenzmodellierung in der Chemie. Theoretische und empirische Reflexion am Beispiel des Modells hierarchischer Komplexit¨at ISBN 978-3-8325-2447-0 40.00 EUR

99

Holger Christoph Stawitz: Auswirkung unterschiedlicher Aufgabenprofile auf die Sch¨ ulerleistung. Vergleich von Naturwissenschafts- und Probleml¨oseaufgaben der PISA 2003-Studie ISBN 978-3-8325-2451-7 37.50 EUR

100 Hans Ernst Fischer, Elke Sumfleth (Hrsg.): nwu-essen – 10 Jahre Essener Forschung zum naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht ISBN 978-3-8325-3331-1 40.00 EUR 101 Hendrik H¨artig: Sachstrukturen von Physikschulb¨ uchern als Grundlage zur Bestimmung der Inhaltsvalidit¨at eines Tests ISBN 978-3-8325-2512-5 34.00 EUR 102 Thomas Gr¨ uß-Niehaus: Zum Verst¨andnis des L¨oslichkeitskonzeptes im Chemieunterricht. Der Effekt von Methoden progressiver und kollaborativer Reflexion ISBN 978-3-8325-2537-8 40.50 EUR 103 Patrick Bronner: Quantenoptische Experimente als Grundlage eines Curriculums zur Quantenphysik des Photons

ISBN 978-3-8325-2540-8

36.00 EUR

104 Adrian Voßk¨ uhler: Blickbewegungsmessung an Versuchsaufbauten. Studien zur Wahrnehmung, Verarbeitung und Usability von physikbezogenen Experimenten am Bildschirm und in der Realit¨at ISBN 978-3-8325-2548-4 47.50 EUR 105 Verena Tobias: Newton’sche Mechanik im Anfangsunterricht. Die Wirksamkeit einer Einf¨uhrung u ¨ber die zweidimensionale Dynamik auf das Lehren und Lernen ISBN 978-3-8325-2558-3 54.00 EUR 106 Christian Rogge: Entwicklung physikalischer Konzepte in aufgabenbasierten Lernumgebungen ISBN 978-3-8325-2574-3 45.00 EUR 107 Mathias Ropohl: Modellierung von Sch¨ ulerkompetenzen im Basiskonzept Chemische Reaktion. Entwicklung und Analyse von Testaufgaben ISBN 978-3-8325-2609-2 36.50 EUR 108 Christoph Kulgemeyer: Physikalische Kommunikationskompetenz. Modellierung und Diagnostik ISBN 978-3-8325-2674-0 44.50 EUR 109 Jennifer Olszewski: The Impact of Physics Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge on Teacher Actions and Student Outcomes ISBN 978-3-8325-2680-1 33.50 EUR 110 Annika Ohle: Primary School Teachers’ Content Knowledge in Physics and its Impact on Teaching and Students’ Achievement ISBN 978-3-8325-2684-9 36.50 EUR 111 Susanne Mannel: Assessing scientific inquiry. Development and evaluation of a test for the low-performing stage ISBN 978-3-8325-2761-7 40.00 EUR 112 Michael Plomer: Physik physiologisch passend praktiziert. Eine Studie zur Lernwirksamkeit von traditionellen und adressatenspezifischen Physikpraktika f¨ur die Physiologie ISBN 978-3-8325-2804-1 34.50 EUR 113 Alexandra Schulz: Experimentierspezifische Qualit¨atsmerkmale im Chemieunterricht. Eine Videostudie ISBN 978-3-8325-2817-1 40.00 EUR 114 Franz Boczianowski: Eine empirische Untersuchung zu Vektoren im Physikunterricht der Mittelstufe ISBN 978-3-8325-2843-0 39.50 EUR 115 Maria Ploog: Internetbasiertes Lernen durch Textproduktion im Fach Physik ISBN 978-3-8325-2853-9 39.50 EUR

116 Anja Dhein: Lernen in Explorier- und Experimentiersituationen. Eine explorative Studie zu Bedeutungsentwicklungsprozessen bei Kindern im Alter zwischen 4 und 6 Jahren ISBN 978-3-8325-2859-1 45.50 EUR 117 Irene Neumann: Beyond Physics Content Knowledge. Modeling Competence Regarding Nature of Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Scientific Knowledge ISBN 978-3-8325-2880-5 37.00 EUR 118 Markus Emden: Prozessorientierte Leistungsmessung des naturwissenschaftlichexperimentellen Arbeitens. Eine vergleichende Studie zu Diagnoseinstrumenten zu Beginn der Sekundarstufe I ISBN 978-3-8325-2867-6 38.00 EUR 119 Birgit Hofmann: Analyse von Blickbewegungen von Sch¨ ulern beim Lesen von physikbezogenen Texten mit Bildern. Eye Tracking als Methodenwerkzeug in der physikdidaktischen Forschung ISBN 978-3-8325-2925-3 59.00 EUR 120 Rebecca Knobloch: Analyse der fachinhaltlichen Qualit¨at von Sch¨ uler¨außerungen und deren Einfluss auf den Lernerfolg. Eine Videostudie zu kooperativer Kleingruppenarbeit ISBN 978-3-8325-3006-8 36.50 EUR 121 Julia Hostenbach: Entwicklung und Pr¨ ufung eines Modells zur Beschreibung der Bewertungskompetenz im Chemieunterricht ISBN 978-3-8325-3013-6 38.00 EUR 122 Anna Windt: Naturwissenschaftliches Experimentieren im Elementarbereich. Evaluation verschiedener Lernsituationen ISBN 978-3-8325-3020-4 43.50 EUR 123 Eva K¨olbach: Kontexteinfl¨ usse beim Lernen mit L¨osungsbeispielen ISBN 978-3-8325-3025-9 38.50 EUR 124 Anna Lau: Passung und vertikale Vernetzung im Chemie- und Physikunterricht ISBN 978-3-8325-3021-1 36.00 EUR 125 Jan Lamprecht: Ausbildungswege und Komponenten professioneller Handlungskompetenz. Vergleich von Quereinsteigern mit Lehramtsabsolventen f¨ur Gymnasien im Fach Physik ISBN 978-3-8325-3035-8 38.50 EUR 126 Ulrike B¨ohm: F¨orderung von Verstehensprozessen unter Einsatz von Modellen ISBN 978-3-8325-3042-6 41.00 EUR 127 Sabrina Dollny: Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Testinstruments zur Erfassung des fachspezifischen Professionswissens von Chemielehrkr¨aften ISBN 978-3-8325-3046-4 37.00 EUR

128 Monika Zimmermann: Naturwissenschaftliche Bildung im Kindergarten. Eine integrative L¨angsschnittstudie zur Kompetenzentwicklung von Erzieherinnen ISBN 978-3-8325-3053-2 54.00 EUR ¨ 129 Ulf Saballus: Uber das Schlussfolgern von Sch¨ ulerinnen und Sch¨ ulern zu o¨ffentlichen Kontroversen mit naturwissenschaftlichem Hintergrund. Eine Fallstudie ISBN 978-3-8325-3086-0 39.50 EUR 130 Olaf Krey: Zur Rolle der Mathematik in der Physik. Wissenschaftstheoretische Aspekte und Vorstellungen Physiklernender ISBN 978-3-8325-3101-0 46.00 EUR 131 Angelika Wolf: Zusammenh¨ange zwischen der Eigenst¨andigkeit im Physikunterricht, der Motivation, den Grundbed¨ urfnissen und dem Lernerfolg von Sch¨ ulern ISBN 978-3-8325-3161-4 45.00 EUR 132 Johannes B¨orlin: Das Experiment als Lerngelegenheit. Vom interkulturellen Vergleich des Physikunterrichts zu Merkmalen seiner Qualit¨at ISBN 978-3-8325-3170-6 45.00 EUR 133 Olaf Uhden: Mathematisches Denken im Physikunterricht. Theorieentwicklung und Problemanalyse ISBN 978-3-8325-3170-6 45.00 EUR 134 Christoph Gut: Modellierung und Messung experimenteller Kompetenz. Analyse eines large-scale Experimentiertests ISBN 978-3-8325-3213-0 40.00 EUR 135 Antonio Rueda: Lernen mit ExploMultimedial in kolumbianischen Schulen. Analyse von kurzzeitigen Lernprozessen und der Motivation beim l¨ander¨ubergreifenden Einsatz einer deutschen computergest¨utzten multimedialen Lernumgebung f¨ur den naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht ISBN 978-3-8325-3218-5 45.50 EUR 136 Krisztina Berger: Bilder, Animationen und Notizen. Empirische Untersuchung zur Wirkung einfacher visueller Repr¨asentationen und Notizen auf den Wissenserwerb in der Optik ISBN 978-3-8325-3238-3 41.50 EUR 137 Antony Crossley: Untersuchung des Einflusses unterschiedlicher physikalischer Konzepte auf den Wissenserwerb in der Thermodynamik der Sekundarstufe I ISBN 978-3-8325-3275-8 40.00 EUR 138 Tobias Viering: Entwicklung physikalischer Kompetenz in der Sekundarstufe I. Validierung eines Kompetenzentwicklungsmodells f¨ur das Energiekonzept im Bereich Fachwissen ISBN 978-3-8325-3277-2 37.00 EUR 139 Nico Schreiber: Diagnostik experimenteller Kompetenz. Validierung technologiegest¨utzter Testverfahren im Rahmen eines Kompetenzstrukturmodells ISBN 978-3-8325-3284-0 39.00 EUR

140 Sarah Hundertmark: Einblicke in kollaborative Lernprozesse. Eine Fallstudie zur reflektierenden Zusammenarbeit unterst¨utzt durch die Methoden Concept Mapping und Lernbegleitbogen ISBN 978-3-8325-3251-2 43.00 EUR 141 Ronny Scherer: Analyse der Struktur, Messinvarianz und Auspr¨agung komplexer Probleml¨osekompetenz im Fach Chemie. Eine Querschnittstudie in der Sekundarstufe I ¨ und am Ubergang zur Sekundarstufe II ISBN 978-3-8325-3312-0 43.00 EUR 142 Patricia Heitmann: Bewertungskompetenz im Rahmen naturwissenschaftlicher Probleml¨oseprozesse. Modellierung und Diagnose der Kompetenzen Bewertung und analytisches Probleml¨osen f¨ur das Fach Chemie ISBN 978-3-8325-3314-4 37.00 EUR 143 Jan Fleischhauer: Wissenschaftliches Argumentieren und Entwicklung von Konzepten beim Lernen von Physik ISBN 978-3-8325-3325-0 35.00 EUR ¨ 144 Nermin Ozcan: Zum Einfluss der Fachsprache auf die Leistung im Fach Chemie. Eine F¨orderstudie zur Fachsprache im Chemieunterricht ISBN 978-3-8325-3328-1 36.50 EUR 145 Helena van Vorst: Kontextmerkmale und ihr Einfluss auf das Sch¨ ulerinteresse im Fach Chemie ISBN 978-3-8325-3321-2 38.50 EUR 146 Janine Cappell: Fachspezifische Diagnosekompetenz angehender Physiklehrkr¨afte in der ersten Ausbildungsphase ISBN 978-3-8325-3356-4 38.50 EUR 147 Susanne Bley: F¨orderung von Transferprozessen im Chemieunterricht ISBN 978-3-8325-3407-3 40.50 EUR 148 Cathrin Blaes: Die u utzte Lehrerpr¨asentation im Chemieunterricht der Se¨bungsgest¨ kundarstufe I. Evaluation der Effektivit¨at ISBN 978-3-8325-3409-7 43.50 EUR 149 Julia Suckut: Die Wirksamkeit von piko-OWL als Lehrerfortbildung. Eine Evaluation zum Projekt Physik im Kontext in Fallstudien ISBN 978-3-8325-3440-0 45.00 EUR 150 Alexandra Dorschu: Die Wirkung von Kontexten in Physikkompetenztestaufgaben ISBN 978-3-8325-3446-2 37.00 EUR 151 Jochen Scheid: Multiple Repr¨asentationen, Verst¨andnis physikalischer Experimente und kognitive Aktivierung: Ein Beitrag zur Entwicklung der Aufgabenkultur ISBN 978-3-8325-3449-3 49.00 EUR 152 Tim Plasa: Die Wahrnehmung von Sch¨ ulerlaboren und Sch¨ ulerforschungszentren ISBN 978-3-8325-3483-7 35.50 EUR

153 Felix Schoppmeier: Physikkompetenz in der gymnasialen Oberstufe.Entwicklung und Validierung eines Kompetenzstrukturmodells f¨ur den Kompetenzbereich Umgang mit Fachwissen ISBN 978-3-8325-3502-5 36.00 EUR 154 Katharina Groß: Experimente alternativ dokumentieren. Eine qualitative Studie zur F¨orderung der Diagnose- und Differenzierungskompetenz in der Chemielehrerbildung ISBN 978-3-8325-3508-7 43.50 EUR 155 Barbara Hank: Konzeptwandelprozesse im Anfangsunterricht Chemie. Eine quasiexperimentelle L¨angsschnittstudie ISBN 978-3-8325-3519-3 38.50 EUR 156 Katja Freyer: Zum Einfluss von Studieneingangsvoraussetzungen auf den Studienerfolg Erstsemesterstudierender im Fach Chemie ISBN 978-3-8325-3544-5 38.00 EUR 157 Alexander Rachel: Auswirkungen instruktionaler Hilfen bei der Einf¨ uhrung des (Ferro-)Magnetismus. Eine Vergleichsstudie in der Primar- und Sekundarstufe ISBN 978-3-8325-3548-3 43.50 EUR 158 Sebastian Ritter: Einfluss des Lerninhalts Nanogr¨oßeneffekte auf Teilchen- und Teilchenmodellvorstellungen von Sch¨ ulerinnen und Sch¨ ulern ISBN 978-3-8325-3558-2 36.00 EUR 159 Andrea Harbach: Problemorientierung und Vernetzung in kontextbasierten Lernaufgaben ISBN 978-3-8325-3564-3 39.00 EUR 160 David Obst: Interaktive Tafeln im Physikunterricht. Entwicklung und Evaluation einer Lehrerfortbildung ISBN 978-3-8325-3582-7 40.50 EUR 161 Sophie Kirschner: Modellierung und Analyse des Professionswissens von Physiklehrkr¨aften ISBN 978-3-8325-3601-5 35.00 EUR 162 Katja Stief: Selbstregulationsprozesse und Hausaufgabenmotivation im Chemieunterricht ISBN 978-3-8325-3631-2 34.00 EUR 163 Nicola Meschede: Professionelle Wahrnehmung der inhaltlichen Strukturierung im naturwissenschaftlichen Grundschulunterricht. Theoretische Beschreibung und empirische Erfassung ISBN 978-3-8325-3668-8 37.00 EUR 164 Johannes Maximilian Barth: Experimentieren im Physikunterricht der gymnasialen Oberstufe. Eine Rekonstruktion ¨ubergeordneter Einbettungsstrategien ISBN 978-3-8325-3681-7 39.00 EUR 165 Sandra Lein: Das Betriebspraktikum in der Lehrerbildung. Eine Untersuchung zur F¨orderung der Wissenschafts- und Technikbildung im allgemeinbildenden Unterricht ISBN 978-3-8325-3698-5 40.00 EUR

166 Veranika Maiseyenka: Modellbasiertes Experimentieren im Unterricht. Praxistauglichkeit und Lernwirkungen ISBN 978-3-8325-3708-1 38.00 EUR 167 Christoph Stolzenberger: Der Einfluss der didaktischen Lernumgebung auf das Erreichen geforderter Bildungsziele am Beispiel der W- und P-Seminare im Fach Physik ISBN 978-3-8325-3708-1 38.00 EUR 168 Pia Altenburger: Mehrebenenregressionsanalysen zum Physiklernen im Sachunterricht der Primarstufe. Ergebnisse einer Evaluationsstudie. ISBN 978-3-8325-3717-3 37.50 EUR 169 Nora Ferber: Entwicklung und Validierung eines Testinstruments zur Erfassung von Kompetenzentwicklung im Fach Chemie in der Sekundarstufe I ISBN 978-3-8325-3727-2 39.50 EUR 170 Anita Stender: Unterrichtsplanung: Vom Wissen zum Handeln. ¨ Theoretische Entwicklung und empirische Uberpr¨ ufung des Transformationsmodells der Unterrichtsplanung ISBN 978-3-8325-3750-0 41.50 EUR 171 Jenna Koenen: Entwicklung und Evaluation von experimentunterst¨ utzten L¨osungsbeispielen zur F¨orderung naturwissenschaftlich-experimenteller Arbeitsweisen ISBN 978-3-8325-3785-2 43.00 EUR 172 Teresa Henning: Empirische Untersuchung kontextorientierter Lernumgebungen in der Hochschuldidaktik. Entwicklung und Evaluation kontextorientierter Aufgaben in der Studieneingangsphase f¨ur Fach- und Nebenfachstudierende der Physik ISBN 978-3-8325-3801-9 43.00 EUR 173 Alexander Pusch: Fachspezifische Instrumente zur Diagnose und individuellen F¨orderung von Lehramtsstudierenden der Physik ISBN 978-3-8325-3829-3 38.00 EUR 174 Christoph Vogelsang: Validierung eines Instruments zur Erfassung der professionellen Handlungskompetenz von (angehenden) Physiklehrkr¨aften. Zusammenhangsanalysen zwischen Lehrerkompetenz und Lehrerperformanz ISBN 978-3-8325-3846-0 50.50 EUR 175 Ingo Brebeck: Selbstreguliertes Lernen in der Studieneingangsphase im Fach Chemie ISBN 978-3-8325-3859-0 37.00 EUR 176 Axel Eghtessad: Merkmale und Strukturen von Professionalisierungsprozessen in der ersten und zweiten Phase der Chemielehrerbildung. Eine empirisch-qualitative Studie mit nieders¨achsischen Fachleiter innen der Sekundarstufenlehr¨amter ISBN 978-3-8325-3861-3 45.00 EUR 177 Andreas Nehring: Wissenschaftliche Denk- und Arbeitsweisen im Fach Chemie. Eine kompetenzorientierte Modell- und Testentwicklung f¨ ur den Bereich der Erkenntnisgewinnung ISBN 978-3-8325-3872-9 39.50 EUR

178 Maike Schmidt: Professionswissen von Sachunterrichtslehrkr¨aften. Zusammenhangsanalyse zur Wirkung von Ausbildungshintergrund und Unterrichtserfahrung auf das fachspezifische Professionswissen im Unterrichtsinhalt Verbrennung“ ” ISBN 978-3-8325-3907-8 38.50 EUR 179 Jan Winkelmann: Auswirkungen auf den Fachwissenszuwachs und auf affektive Sch¨ ulermerkmale durch Sch¨ uler- und Demonstrationsexperimente im Physikunterricht ISBN 978-3-8325-3915-3 41.00 EUR 180 Iwen Kobow: Entwicklung und Validierung eines Testinstrumentes zur Erfassung der Kommunikationskompetenz im Fach Chemie ISBN 978-3-8325-3927-6 34.50 EUR 181 Yvonne Gramzow: Fachdidaktisches Wissen von Lehramtsstudierenden im Fach Physik. Modellierung und Testkonstruktion ISBN 978-3-8325-3931-3 42.50 EUR 182 Evelin Schr¨oter: Entwicklung der Kompetenzerwartung durch L¨osen physikalischer Aufgaben einer multimedialen Lernumgebung ISBN 978-3-8325-3975-7 54.50 EUR 183 Inga Kallweit: Effektivit¨at des Einsatzes von Selbsteinsch¨atzungsb¨ogen im Chemieunterricht der Sekundarstufe I. Individuelle F¨orderung durch selbstreguliertes Lernen ISBN 978-3-8325-3965-8 44.00 EUR 184 Andrea Schumacher: Paving the way towards authentic chemistry teaching. A contribution to teachers’ professional development ISBN 978-3-8325-3976-4 48.50 EUR 185 David Woitkowski: Fachliches Wissen Physik in der Hochschulausbildung. Konzeptualisierung, Messung, Niveaubildung ISBN 978-3-8325-3988-7 53.00 EUR 186 Marianne Korner: Cross-Age Peer Tutoring in Physik. Evaluation einer Unterrichtsmethode ISBN 978-3-8325-3979-5 38.50 EUR 187 Simone Nakoinz: Untersuchung zur Verkn¨ upfung submikroskopischer und makroskopischer Konzepte im Fach Chemie ISBN 978-3-8325-4057-9 38.50 EUR 188 Sandra Anus: Evaluation individueller F¨orderung im Chemieunterricht.Adaptivit¨at von Lerninhalten an das Vorwissen von Lernenden am Beispiel des Basiskonzeptes Chemische Reaktion ISBN 978-3-8325-4059-3 43.50 EUR 189 Thomas Roßbegalle: Fachdidaktische Entwicklungsforschung zum besseren Verst¨andnis atmosph¨arischer Ph¨anomene. Treibhauseffekt, saurer Regen und stratosph¨arischer Ozonabbau als Kontexte zur Vermittlung von Basiskonzepten der Chemie ISBN 978-3-8325-4059-3 45.50 EUR 190 Kathrin Steckenmesser-Sander: Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede physikbezogener Handlungs-, Denk- und Lernprozesse von M¨adchen und Jungen ISBN 978-3-8325-4066-1 38.50 EUR

191 Cornelia Geller: Lernprozessorientierte Sequenzierung des Physikunterrichts im Zusammenhang mit Fachwissenserwerb. Eine Videostudie in Finnland, Deutschland und der Schweiz ISBN 978-3-8325-4082-1 35.50 EUR 192 Jan Hofmann: Untersuchung des Kompetenzaufbaus von Physiklehrkr¨aften w¨ahrend einer Fortbildungsmaßnahme ISBN 978-3-8325-4104-0 38.50 EUR 193 Andreas Dickh¨auser: Chemiespezifischer Humor. Theoriebildung, Materialentwicklung, Evaluation ISBN 978-3-8325-4108-8 37.00 EUR 194 Stefan Korte: Die Grenzen der Naturwissenschaft als Thema des Physikunterrichts ISBN 978-3-8325-4112-5 57.50 EUR 195 Carolin H¨ ulsmann: Kurswahlmotive im Fach Chemie. Eine Studie zum Wahlverhalten und Erfolg von Sch¨ ulerinnen und Sch¨ ulern in der gymnasialen Oberstufe ISBN 978-3-8325-4144-6 49.00 EUR 196 Caroline K¨orbs: Mindeststandards im Fach Chemie am Ende der Pflichtschulzeit ISBN 978-3-8325-4148-4 34.00 EUR 197 Andreas Vorholzer: Wie lassen sich Kompetenzen des experimentellen Denkens und Arbeitens f¨ordern? Eine empirische Untersuchung der Wirkung eines expliziten und eines impliziten Instruktionsansatzes ISBN 978-3-8325-4194-1 37.50 EUR 198 Anna Katharina Schmitt: Entwicklung und Evaluation einer Chemielehrerfortbildung zum Kompetenzbereich Erkenntnisgewinnung ISBN 978-3-8325-4228-3 39.50 EUR 199 Christian Maurer: Strukturierung von Lehr-Lern-Sequenzen ISBN 978-3-8325-4247-4 36.50 EUR 200 Helmut Fischler, Elke Sumfleth (Hrsg.): Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkr¨aften der Chemie und Physik ISBN 978-3-8325-4523-9 34.00 EUR 201 Simon Zander: Lehrerfortbildung zu Basismodellen und Zusammenh¨ange zum Fachwissen ISBN 978-3-8325-4248-1 35.00 EUR 202 Kerstin Arndt: Experimentierkompetenz erfassen. Analyse von Prozessen und Mustern am Beispiel von Lehramtsstudierenden der Chemie ISBN 978-3-8325-4266-5 45.00 EUR 203 Christian Lang: Kompetenzorientierung im Rahmen experimentalchemischer Praktika ISBN 978-3-8325-4268-9 42.50 EUR 204 Eva Cauet: Testen wir relevantes Wissen? Zusammenhang zwischen dem Professionswissen von Physiklehrkr¨aften und gutem und erfolgreichem Unterrichten ISBN 978-3-8325-4276-4 39.50 EUR

205 Patrick L¨offler: Modellanwendung in Probleml¨oseaufgaben.Wie wirkt Kontext? ISBN 978-3-8325-4303-7 35.00 EUR 206 Carina Gehlen: Kompetenzstruktur naturwissenschaftlicher Erkenntnisgewinnung im Fach Chemie ISBN 978-3-8325-4318-1 43.00 EUR 207 Lars Oettinghaus: Lehrer¨ uberzeugungen und physikbezogenes Professionswissen. Vergleich von Absolventinnen und Absolventen verschiedener Ausbildungswege im Physikreferendariat ISBN 978-3-8325-4319-8 38.50 EUR 208 Jennifer Petersen: Zum Einfluss des Merkmals Humor auf die Gesundheitsf¨orderung im Chemieunterricht der Sekundarstufe I. Eine Interventionsstudie zum Thema Sonnenschutz ISBN 978-3-8325-4348-8 40.00 EUR 209 Philipp Straube: Modellierung und Erfassung von Kompetenzen naturwissenschaftlicher Erkenntnisgewinnung bei (Lehramts-) Studierenden im Fach Physik ISBN 978-3-8325-4351-8 35.50 EUR 210 Martin Dickmann: Messung von Experimentierf¨ahigkeiten. Validierungsstudien zur Qualit¨at eines computerbasierten Testverfahrens ISBN 978-3-8325-4356-3 41.00 EUR 211 Markus Bohlmann: Science Education. Empirie, Kulturen und Mechanismen der Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften ISBN 978-3-8325-4377-8 44.00 EUR 212 Martin Draude: Die Kompetenz von Physiklehrkr¨aften, Schwierigkeiten von Sch¨ ulerinnen und Sch¨ ulern beim eigenst¨andigen Experimentieren zu diagnostizieren ISBN 978-3-8325-4382-2 37.50 EUR 213 Henning Rode: Prototypen evidenzbasierten Physikunterrichts. Zwei empirische Studien zum Einsatz von Feedback und Blackboxes in der Sekundarstufe ISBN 978-3-8325-4389-1 42.00 EUR 214 Jan-Henrik Kechel: Sch¨ ulerschwierigkeiten beim eigenst¨andigen Experimentieren. Eine qualitative Studie am Beispiel einer Experimentieraufgabe zum Hooke’schen Gesetz ISBN 978-3-8325-4392-1 55.00 EUR 215 Katharina Fricke: Classroom Management and its Impact on Lesson Outcomes in Physics. A multi-perspective comparison of teaching practices in primary and secondary schools ISBN 978-3-8325-4394-5 40.00 EUR 216 Hannes Sander: Orientierungen von Jugendlichen beim Urteilen und Entscheiden in Kontexten nachhaltiger Entwicklung. Eine rekonstruktive Perspektive auf Bewertungskompetenz in der Didaktik der Naturwissenschaft ISBN 978-3-8325-4434-8 46.00 EUR

217 Inka Haak: Maßnahmen zur Unterst¨ utzung kognitiver und metakognitiver Prozesse in der Studieneingangsphase. Eine Design-Based-Research-Studie zum universit¨aren Lernzentrum Physiktreff ISBN 978-3-8325-4437-9 46.50 EUR 218 Martina Brandenburger: Was beeinflusst den Erfolg beim Probleml¨osen in der Physik? Eine Untersuchung mit Studierenden ISBN 978-3-8325-4409-6 42.50 EUR 219 Corinna Helms: Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Trainings zur Verbesserung der Erkl¨arqualit¨at von Sch¨ ulerinnen und Sch¨ ulern im Gruppenpuzzle ISBN 978-3-8325-4454-6 42.50 EUR 220 Viktoria Rath: Diagnostische Kompetenz von angehenden Physiklehrkr¨aften. Modellierung, Testinstrumentenentwicklung und Erhebung der Performanz bei der Diagnose von Sch¨ulervorstellungen in der Mechanik ISBN 978-3-8325-4456-0 42.50 EUR 221 Janne Kr¨ uger: Sch¨ ulerperspektiven auf die zeitliche Entwicklung der Naturwissenschaften ISBN 978-3-8325-4457-7 45.50 EUR 222 Stefan Mutke: Das Professionswissen von Chemiereferendarinnen und -referendaren in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Eine L¨angsschnittstudie ISBN 978-3-8325-4458-4 37.50 EUR 223 Sebastian Habig: Systematisch variierte Kontextaufgaben und ihr Einfluss auf kognitive und affektive Sch¨ ulerfaktoren ISBN 978-3-8325-4467-6 40.50 EUR 224 Sven Liepertz: Zusammenhang zwischen dem Professionswissen von Physiklehrkr¨aften, dem sachstrukturellen Angebot des Unterrichts und der Sch¨ ulerleistung ISBN 978-3-8325-4480-5 34.00 EUR 225 Elina Platova: Optimierung eines Laborpraktikums durch kognitive Aktivierung ISBN 978-3-8325-4481-2 39.00 EUR 226 Tim Reschke: Lesegeschichten im Chemieunterricht der Sekundarstufe I zur Unterst¨ utzung von situationalem Interesse und Lernerfolg ISBN 978-3-8325-4487-4 41.00 EUR 227 Lena Mareike Walper: Entwicklung der physikbezogenen Interessen und selbstbezo¨ genen Kognitionen von Sch¨ ulerinnen und Sch¨ ulern in der Ubergangsphase von der Primar- in die Sekundarstufe. Eine L¨angsschnittanalyse vom vierten bis zum siebten Schuljahr ISBN 978-3-8325-4495-9 43.00 EUR 228 Stefan Anthofer: F¨orderung des fachspezifischen Professionswissens von Chemielehramtsstudierenden ISBN 978-3-8325-4498-0 39.50 EUR 229 Marcel Bullinger: Handlungsorientiertes Physiklernen mit instruierten Selbsterkl¨arungen in der Primarstufe. Eine experimentelle Laborstudie ISBN 978-3-8325-4504-8 44.00 EUR

230 Thomas Amenda: Bedeutung fachlicher Elementarisierungen f¨ ur das Verst¨andnis der Kinematik ISBN 978-3-8325-4531-4 43.50 EUR 231 Sabrina Milke: Beeinflusst Priming das Physiklernen? Eine empirische Studie zum Dritten Newtonschen Axiom ISBN 978-3-8325-4549-4 42.00 EUR 232 Corinna Erfmann: Ein anschaulicher Weg zum Verst¨andnis der elektromagnetischen Induktion. Evaluation eines Unterrichtsvorschlags und Validierung eines Leistungsdiagnoseinstruments ISBN 978-3-8325-4550-5 49.50 EUR 233 Hanne Rautenstrauch: Erhebung des (Fach-)Sprachstandes bei Lehramtsstudierenden im Kontext des Faches Chemie ISBN 978-3-8325-4556-7 40.50 EUR 234 Tobias Klug: Wirkung kontextorientierter physikalischer Praktikumsversuche auf Lernprozesse von Studierenden der Medizin ISBN 978-3-8325-4558-1 37.00 EUR 235 Mareike Bohrmann: Zur F¨orderung des Verst¨andnisses der Variablenkontrolle im naturwissenschaftlichen Sachunterricht ISBN 978-3-8325-4559-8 52.00 EUR 236 Anja Sch¨odl: FALKO-Physik – Fachspezifische Lehrerkompetenzen im Fach Physik. Entwicklung und Validierung eines Testinstruments zur Erfassung des fachspezifischen Professionswissens von Physiklehrkr¨aften ISBN 978-3-8325-4553-6 40.50 EUR 237 Hilda Scheuermann: Entwicklung und Evaluation von Unterst¨ utzungsmaßnahmen zur F¨orderung der Variablenkontrollstrategie beim Planen von Experimenten ISBN 978-3-8325-4568-0 39.00 EUR 238 Christian G. Strippel: Naturwissenschaftliche Erkenntnisgewinnung an chemischen Inhalten vermitteln. Konzeption und empirische Untersuchung einer Ausstellung mit Experimentierstation ISBN 978-3-8325-4577-2 41.50 EUR 239 Sarah Rau: Durchf¨ uhrung von Sachunterricht im Vorbereitungsdienst. Eine l¨angsschnittliche, videobasierte Unterrichtsanalyse ISBN 978-3-8325-4579-6 46.00 EUR 240 Thomas Plotz: Lernprozesse zu nicht-sichtbarer Strahlung. Empirische Untersuchungen in der Sekundarstufe 2 ISBN 978-3-8325-4624-3 39.50 EUR

241 Wolfgang Aschauer: Elektrische und magnetische Felder. Eine empirische Studie zu Lernprozessen in der Sekundarstufe II ISBN 978-3-8325-4625-0 50.00 EUR 242 Anna Donhauser: Didaktisch rekonstruierte Materialwissenschaft. Aufbau und Konzeption eines Sch¨ulerlabors f¨ur den Exzellenzcluster Engineering of Advanced Materials ISBN 978-3-8325-4636-6 39.00 EUR 243 Katrin Sch¨ ußler: Lernen mit L¨osungsbeispielen im Chemieunterricht. Einfl¨usse auf Lernerfolg, kognitive Belastung und Motivation ISBN 978-3-8325-4640-3 42.50 EUR 244 Timo Fleischer: Untersuchung der chemischen Fachsprache unter besonderer Ber¨ ucksichtigung chemischer Repr¨asentationen ISBN 978-3-8325-4642-7 46.50 EUR 245 Rosina Steininger: Concept Cartoons als Stimuli f¨ ur Kleingruppendiskussionen im Chemieunterricht. Beschreibung und Analyse einer komplexen Lerngelegenheit ISBN 978-3-8325-4647-2 39.00 EUR 246 Daniel Rehfeldt: Erfassung der Lehrqualit¨at naturwissenschaftlicher Experimentalpraktika ISBN 978-3-8325-4590-1 40.00 EUR 247 Sandra Puddu: Implementing Inquiry-based Learning in a Diverse Classroom: Investigating Strategies of Scaffolding and Students’ Views of Scientific Inquiry ISBN 978-3-8325-4591-8 35.50 EUR 248 Markus Bliersbach: Kreativit¨at in der Chemie. Erhebung und F¨orderung der Vorstellungen von Chemielehramtsstudierenden ISBN 978-3-8325-4593-2 44.00 EUR 249 Lennart Kimpel: Aufgaben in der Allgemeinen Chemie. Zum Zusammenspiel von chemischem Verst¨andnis und Rechenf¨ahigkeit ISBN 978-3-8325-4618-2 36.00 EUR 250 Louise Bindel: Effects of integrated learning: explicating a mathematical concept in inquiry-based science camps ISBN 978-3-8325-4655-7 37.50 EUR

Alle erschienenen B¨ ucher k¨onnen unter der angegebenen ISBN direkt online (http://www.logosverlag.de) oder per Fax (030 - 42 85 10 92) beim Logos Verlag Berlin bestellt werden.

Studien zum Physik- und Chemielernen Herausgegeben von Hans Niedderer, Helmut Fischler und Elke Sumfleth Die Reihe umfasst inzwischen eine große Zahl von wissenschaftlichen Arbeiten aus vielen Arbeitsgruppen der Physik- und Chemiedidaktik und zeichnet damit ein g¨ultiges Bild der empirischen physik- und chemiedidaktischen Forschung in Deutschland. Die Herausgeber laden daher Interessenten zu neuen Beitr¨agen ein und bitten sie, sich im Bedarfsfall an den Logos-Verlag oder an ein Mitglied des Herausgeberteams zu wenden.

Kontaktadressen: Prof. Dr. Hans Niedderer Institut f¨ur Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, Abt. Physikdidaktik, FB Physik/Elektrotechnik, Universit¨at Bremen, Postfach 33 04 40, 28334 Bremen Tel. 0421-218 2484/4695, e-mail: [email protected]

Prof. Dr. Helmut Fischler Didaktik der Physik, FB Physik, Freie Universit¨at Berlin, Arnimallee 14, 14195 Berlin Tel. 030-838 56712/55966, e-mail: [email protected]

Prof. Dr. Elke Sumfleth Didaktik der Chemie, Fachbereich Chemie, Universit¨at Duisburg-Essen, Sch¨utzenbahn 70, 45127 Essen Tel. 0201-183 3757/3761, e-mail: [email protected]

This thesis, an explorative case study, provides insights into the implementation of inquiry-based learning in an authentic classroom. For one year, a teacher was accompanied while implementing inquiry-based learning in a highly diverse class. In doing so, the observations focused on strategies for both scaffolding and dealing with diversity. Additionally, data reflecting students’ views of scientific inquiry were gathered. The results show a successive implementation of inquiry-based learning through four phases supported by various scaffolding strategies. The views of scientific inquiry are discussed on both the class and the individual level. Finally, all these findings are brought together to paint a vivid picture of the investigated class. Die vorliegende Arbeit, eine explorative Fallstudie, bietet einen Einblick in ein authentisches Klassenzimmer, in dem Forschendes Lernen eingeführt wurde. Dazu wurde eine Lehrperson ein Jahr lang begleitet. Die Beforschung fokussierte auf Lernbegleitungsstrategien, den Umgang mit Diversität sowie den Sichtweisen der Schülerinnen und Schüler über Naturwissenschaften. Die Resultate zeigen eine schrittweise Einführung von Forschendem Lernen in vier Phasen, begleitet von vielfältigen Lernbegleitungsstrategien. Schließlich werden alle Ergebnisse zusammengeführt, um ein lebendiges Bild des untersuchten Unterrichts und der Personen zu zeichnen.

Logos Verlag Berlin ISBN 978-3-8325-4591-8